Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 14: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:34, 14 September 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 September >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OfficerDown.US

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

I can only find trivial mentions of this website in independent sources. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 09:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a crowd-funding website, and not a notable one. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. only mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JerryCo

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

There's no real evidence of notability. Most of the links are dead, but as far as I can tell, they include the subject's official site (not an independent source); a couple of blogs (also disqualified, per WP:SPS); and a smattering of other more-or-less shady sites, apparently promoting some video clip. The subject seems to have been associated with a couple of better-known figures in 2004/05, but that really is not enough to demonstrate any sort of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate that this rapper is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 25 September 2017 (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. Please include sources mentioned within this discussion in the article in order to address potential future notability concerns. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Research & Exchanges Board

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

The article is in this poor state siince 2008 and tagged for notability since 2016. Time to say guud-bye. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why the organization is notable The notice at the top of the article asks for help in establishing the organization’s notability, which seems to be the main concern. Here is some information about IREX’s current and historical significance, with links to sources.

IREX was established in 1968 by the American Council of Learned Societies, the Social Science Research Council, the Ford Foundation, and the US Department of State. IREX conducted scholarly exchanges between the US and the Soviet Union to bridge geopolitical divides, until the fall of the Iron Curtain.

For more information about IREX’s role during this period, see:

Yale Richmond, Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2004)
David C. Engerman, Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet Experts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)
Richard T. Arndt, The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (Lincoln NE: Potomac Books, 2005)
Lucia Capodilupo, “IREX in Romania: Overview of Programs to Date and Plans for the Future,” Economy, Society, and Culture in Contemporary Romania (1984)
There is also a brief summary of IREX’s history at https://www.irex.org/our-story

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, IREX received an influx of funding to support democratic reforms and strengthen organizations. IREX administered programs to conduct educational exchanges, strengthen civil society in developing countries, increase internet access, and provide training and support to journalists and media organizations, among other activities. See:

M. Holt Ruffin, The Post-Soviet Handbook: A Guide to Grassroots Organizations and Internet Resources, 2nd ed. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999)
M. Holt Ruffin and Daniel Clarke Waugh, eds., Charles E. Ziegler, ed., Civil Society in Central Asia (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999)
Sarah E. Mendelson and John K. Glenn, eds., The Power and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002)
Beate Josephi, ed., Journalism Education in Countries with Limited Media Freedom (Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers, 2010)
Jennifer Whitten-Woodring and Douglas A. Van Belle, eds., Historical Guide to World Media Freedom: A Country-by-Country Analysis (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014)

Today, IREX conducts civil society, education, gender, governance, leadership, media, technology, and youth programs in more than 100 countries: https://www.devex.com/organizations/international-research-exchanges-board-irex-3236

For example, IREX implements the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, a highly selective fellowship that builds the skills of 1,000 promising young leaders each year.

For a list of news articles about the program: https://yalisummit.irex.org/in-the-news/
For more information: http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2016/august/sen-coons-addresses-young-leaders/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsANB8TN9ps

IREX implements the World Smarts STEM Challenge, which was profiled in NPR and the Washington Times:

IREX’s education and leadership work has recently been featured in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Education Week, among other outlets:

Recently, the Center for European Policy Analysis and Legatum Institute published reports that describe IREX’s approach to helping citizens fight fake news. IREX's approach has also been discussed in the Washington Post:

IREX’s work in building, overseeing, and supporting the BOTA Foundation received praise from the Financial Times. The foundation distributed $115 million in grants, cash transfers, and scholarships in Kazakhstan: https://www.ft.com/content/10d8679c-228b-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

If you still feel that the organization is not notable, could you please specify why?

There are some suggestions for improving the article on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Research_%26_Exchanges_Board

--50.58.68.98 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this source (one of those listed above) provides reasonably in-depth coverage: link. 50 years of history and some indications of significance due to its role during the Cold War. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the IP and K.e.coffman show that there is plenty of academic sourcing out there for this to be notable. The book K.e.coffman presents is published by Oxford University Press, so it definitely meets our RS guidelines. Clear pass of WP:N here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Barrios

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

Non-notable individual mentioned briefly in conjunction with Oscar Danilo Blandón in a few conspiracy sources that claim the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. Location (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) -Location (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentioned in Dark Alliance as asking Oscar Danilo Blandón to speak to Norwin Meneses, and as owning a restaurant in Miami. Have found no other references or rhyme or reason for an article about him. Rgr09 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saw second hand accounts that claimed he was involved in the cocaine trade in Los Angeles, but nothing that met requirements for notability or notoriety. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article totally lacks sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Radusky

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

The page previously contained a variety of controversies surrounding the individual's architectural projects, that do not necessarily reflect personal controversies. Furthermore, upon searching for information about the individual, little information (besides that from the NYC Office of Professions and a LinkedIn profile) appears. It is therefore my proposal that the page be deleted as its subject is not sufficiently notable. --Hunterm267^Talk 21:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the deleted content was not focussing on Radusky, but on a coatrack-y listing of projects he was involved in as architect - with lots of irrelevant details. Radusky is only mentioned in passing in his obvious role as architect, none of the sources offers additional relevant biographical information. The general problem with the underlying certification process is sufficiently mentioned in Self-Certification (New York City Department of Buildings), but a Wiki-article should not serve as a directory or "list of shame" of such incidents without sufficient topic-related context. On a sidenote, several other related articles have also been edited in an apparent attempt to raise more awareness for these problems in New York City (WP:NOTADVOCACY applies). Removing these coatrack details, the remaining content and sources directly about Radusky are not sufficient to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Pretty clearly a notable architect in NYC as a founder of Bricolage Design, see, for example THIS PIECE in the Village Voice and THIS PIECE in the New York Daily News would indicate. Meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion was generated by last relist. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a WP:MILL architect, and the article as written has no working references. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. After all the controversial material was removed, it is also became apparent the subject fails WP:GNG as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fuck it, this has been held over FIVE times. Not supposed to happen that way. I will get out of the way. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2017 (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. Let's try to sort this out using regular editing, which may include merging, and if not, we can revisit the possibility of deletion at a later time. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bardon Park (Western Australia)

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

Non-notable park. Sure there's information on it but no actual proof of notability. Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability etc. — IVORK _Discuss 13:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched but could find no references suggesting that this is a recognized tourist attraction or otherwise more than an attractive but run of the mill city park in the Maylands neighborhood of Perth's Bayswater suburb. It's not even mentioned in our articles about Maylands and Bayswater, although some other parks are. As such, notability is not established under the guideline at WP:NGEO or otherwise. (Note: there's a more notable Bardon Park in Leicestershire.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community group https://www.facebook.com/bardonpark/ User:stevenebsary —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) As the Bardon Park area is significant to Noongar Culture and history with the natural springs in the wetlands also its links to Derbarl Yerrigan (Swan River) http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/calendars/nyoongar.shtml#djilba[reply]

Section substituted in from User_talk:Stevenebsary#Sourcing_relevant_info — IVORK _Discuss 07:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate,
You are doing good work on the article in terms of getting it to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. However unfortunately I do believe the deletion nomination I placed will succeed due to the fact it is just one run of the mill park of many across Perth. Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia can only include articles that are particularly note-worthy. Just because something exists does not automatically qualify it as such. The criteria for notability is laid out in WP:NGEO. If it is deleted, I hope you still have the desire to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. — IVORK _Discuss 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of sourcing relevant info on the park.User:Stevenebsary

It's not about information to prove it exists, I was a resident of Perth for 20 years, it's about proving that it is worthy of an article. That it is relevant to people outside of the local surrounds / city / state / country. — IVORK _Discuss 06:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/enwiki/static/FullTextFiles/052287.003.pdf

Yep, again. This merely states it exists, not that it is particularly notable above any of the other parks that exist across the world. — IVORK _Discuss 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a wildlife sanctuary is important. It has indigenous history https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf

I'm not sure 30 people camping there in the 1930-60s alone gives it relevance. This is the only mention of the park in the article. DPAW doesn't even list it on the "park finder" on their website, I'd say it'd be pretty hard to find an example of a park with a waterfront that isn't also "a wildlife sanctuary". There is however an article on the Swan River (Western Australia). — IVORK _Discuss 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous art installation https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=692968497568450&id=677400495791917

Tourist attraction park playground https://www.weekendnotes.com/bardon-park/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenebsary (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very reluctantly. There just does not seem to be anywhere near enough to establish notability at this time. It is mentioned in WA Parliamentary debate though. As much as I do not like to see the first article by a WP:NEWBIE get deleted, especially given that there seems to be so much good faith here, and having had such trouble myself when I first started, there just does not seem to be enough here for anything remotely core or in-depth or specific to the park. If the indigenous aspect can be built up, I might be convinced to change my mind. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the sv site version related here? This all started due to facebooks import from that source, causing incorrect data there for the place (well in the wrong language). Unfortunately facebook is terrible at places in many ways. Will that version still exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenebsary (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined not to encroach into foreign language Wikipedias. From what I can tell with the assistance of a translator extension, that article was created by an automated bot. Being that was the case, and no such thing for article creation exists on the English Wikipedia, what I know of their guidelines clearly isn't enough for me to propose deletion. Most foreign language Wikipedias act independently of one another, as even the guidelines after all are all just one big agreed-upon consensus between editors. I am not familiar with the history of that article or the bot that seemingly created it. — IVORK _Discuss 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The Swedish Wikipedia article mentioned above is at sv:Bardon Park (park i Australien, Western Australia). The same bot that created that article also created one for sv:Bardon Park (park i Australien, New South Wales). That's a real neighborhood park in Coogee, New South Wales [1], but I don't see anything in either of these Swedish articles that suggests that either of these parks is notable under English Wikipedia standards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Maylands, Western Australia. There's really no need to delete all of this newbie's work.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, to revisit in six months or one year. Or at worst merge, possibly into Maylands, Western Australia. Or move to List of parks in Western Australia and develop. Quite small municipal/urban parks in the United States are "Kept" at AFD fairly frequently. Coverage of parks in Western Australia could be developed by creating a list-article, with a table row for each one. I note there is not a List of parks in Australia (currently a redlink) or even an international List of parks (currently a redlink), though there is a List of national parks and List of national parks in Australia. --do ncr am 17:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are sources about community involvement in the park, from relatively local news sources and blogs, but I think these add up and suffice. For example:

blog review/description of the park
I added that "Nearby residents concerned about the park incorporated the Bardon Park Riverside Restoration Group to address weeds in 2016. The park has been managed by the City of Bayswater since 2006." based on |title=Residents to tackle Bardon Park weeds themselves, of 11 October 2016
I added that: "A nature playground was developed for $175,000 and opened in March 2016. The playground features a rock garden which illustrates 'the six Noongar seasons of Birak - the first summer, Bunuru - the second summer, Djeran - autumn, Makuru - the first rains, Djilba - the second rains and Kambarang - flowering.'", based on the City of Bayswater's facebook posting about it: [2].

I think this stuff adds up. What is needed is some helpful development, not eradication of good faith new contributor's work. --do ncr am 17:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. we have normally kept all substantial city parks as geographic features, and the references are good enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, re sources discussed throughout this afd, a "Parks" section in the Maylands, Western Australia article would also be useful. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I'm not sure that this is a "substantial city park", to quote DDG. If this were Central Park or Hyde Park then definitely, but I'm not convinced this is anything more than an ordinary suburban park, and none of the sources shown or arguments presented have convinced me otherwise. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - This seems to have been covered in multiple reliable sources. Although there aren't too many, I think that there are enough to verify the contents of the article. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a small city park with no indication of notability. I was easily convinced by reading this from one of the sources in the article: "would have to be one of the prettiest, albeit least-known of our riverside parklands. Relatively small in size, ..." It has some grass, a playground, some picnic tables (as do thousands of others). Just a WP:MILL park. MB 02:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure this strictly meets GNG, but normally with geographical features we just need their existence to be proven, which in this article it has. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:06, 30 September 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Equity Ltd

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

Per WP:NCORP. The sources need to be checked for WP:CORPDEPTH. A large portion of the sources are briefly state menthes about normal functions of any financial services firm - I don't reel as though their is anything significantly noteworthy about the company that would warrant a WP page at this time. Comatmebro (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This appears to be a borderline case, with several of the sources right on the threshold of CORPDEPTH. The sheer amount of sourcing pushes it over the line, just barely, toward "keep" for me. I also should note that as the nominator it's your responsibility to check the sources for CORPDEPTH before making the deletion nomination, instead of leaving it to others to do so. CJK09 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added independent in-depth references from reliable sources.ViktoriaCerena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — ViktoriaCerena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Summoned by ViktoriaCerena on my talk page. Notability is established with the addition of reliable sources detailing the company. Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Copiously referenced with news-release style notices in trade journals, there seems to be nothing in Gnews from the sort of truly independent, reliable business media that would meet satisfy our requirements. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that the "sheer amount of sourcing" from non-reliable publications somehow pushes this past the mark. I'm not sure why a new WP:SPA has popped up to create this article on a minor ~~Canadian~~ North American financial firm, but I don't think this belongs here, based on the quality -- not mere quantity -- of sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through "Canadian." Company has expanded to the US. Let's add to that deletion sorting, as well, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear that the "Keep" !voters above are misinterpreting the guidelines for notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. References derived from company PR, company announcements and normal business announcements do not meet the criteria for establishing notability since they are not "intellectually" independent. The quantity of sources only suggests a functional PR department. ViktoriaCerena suggests that "independent in-depth references from reliable sources" have been added but looking at the sources added, it is clear that while the sources may be independent, the articles are not since they rely almost exclusively on company material with no independent opinion or commentary. For example, this added references from privateequitywire is not independent as it is a joint announcement from the company and the law firm that advised them on an acquisition and fails ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. This reference from pehub.com is an interview with the company president, offers no independent commentary or opinion, and fails CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. I could go on but you get the point. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "45th fastest growing finance companies in Canada by Profit Magazine" is hardly a claim of significance. The sources are PR-driven and not independent of the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Basically, corporate spam for a nn organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. should be deleted as an attempt at promotion, regardless of notability, but in addition the sources for notability are insufficiently independent or substantial -- situation which tends to confirm the promotional nature of the article DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 14 September 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gallen Group

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

The discussion group is real and has been covered, but the question is whether or not it is notable enough for its own article: my !vote is obviously no. The essential claim to notability is that they formed a faction within two papal conclaves (2005/2013) to elect the current Pope and in opposition to Pope Benedict XVI: this is essentially a conspiracy theory that would be common in virtually any papal election. They're secretive by nature, so no one knows what goes on as they are occurring and as of at least the 20th century, cardinals cannot actually reveal what occurred in the conclave, so the existence of any sourcing on it is by its very nature an unreliable source. We effectively have here a conspiracy theory about BLPs, and it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply quote myself: "I don't think the group itself is notable". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "Group" had annual discussions, but inconsistent participation and no name we know of. Papal succession was one topic among many. There's no evidence the 7 (approx.) of them who participated in 2005 conclave did anything other than support like-minded candidates, which is no shocker. While the content of discussions was confidential, the existence of these discussions was not secret, as evidenced by the fact that the Vatican sent one of its own loyalists, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, to check it out. But the press gets excited by anything "secret" (not revealed until 2015!) and the joke about Mafia served as a multiplier. Then conspiracy theorists run with the headlines and try their damnedest to stretch the influence to 2013. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliably sourced topic with references from mainstream Catholic media (Catholic News Agency, National Catholic Register) and secular media (London Telegraph, Washington Post, La Stampa, Spectator, etc). The topic has not only featured in the international press and in officially approved biographies of one of the Cardinals involved, but has also been given a prominent place in the work of Austen Ivereigh on the Rise of Pope Francis. As well as this, it elicited a response from the Holy See Press Office in 2014 with a statement from Federico Lombardi. Given that the Catholic Church has some 1.2 billion members worldwide and this group of high ranking clerics have been described under this title in mainstream sources as having had influence in two Papal conclaves, it would appear to be notable enough as a topic. I don't think it would fall under "fringe" because it is mentioned by the mainstream media. Aside from that the main contention in the nomination that it is a "conspiracy theory" (whatever that slippery term is supposed to mean) is not stated in the aforementioned sources. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The oft-quoted "1.2 billion" members line. They include me in that figure! Doesn't mean much. Once you're in, it seems you can't get out. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Catholic Register is the rough equivalent of The Weekly Standard and Catholic News Agency of the WSJ editorial page: also, they are both owned by EWTN, so hardly independent intellectually. As I said at the fringe theories noticeboard, this is effectively a conclave conspiracy theory: we get tons of those on here dating back hundreds of years worth of articles because conclaves are secretive events.
None of the reporting on the conspiracy theories from at least the 20th century on meet our standards for reliable sourcing, however, because they are built on the Roman rumour mill: there is no such thing as an on the record statement about the internal workings of contemporary papal conclaves. A cardinal would be excommunicated by the law itself if he were to reveal what happened, so there are never actual names involved with the sourcing, and it is usually a friend of a friend of a friend of Cardinal Foo who tells it to the journalist. The secular sources above all generally reporting on what the other sources reported on: that means they are re-reporting that other people reported unreliable information. That doesn't get near GNG.
The question is whether or not this particular conspiracy theory is notable or whether it just got a brief burst of press and is excluded by NOTNEWS. The most notable conclave conspiracy theory is the one about Siri thesis that spawned Sedevacantism. That is notable because it caused several (exceptionally minor) schisms by conspiracy theorists who have elected their own rival popes over the last 60 years, and thus it has received enough sustained coverage to be notable as a theory. It also doesn't really have any BLP issues since everyone in the 1958 conclave is dead now. This one, however, just received a brief blip of news, and involves living cardinals to whom association as a cabal within the conclave or college from non-RS could have a negative impact on. This should be deleted on BLP, NOTNEWS, and GNG grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- concur with nom: the group is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone article, for lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BLP concerns are also a factor. The conspiracy theory does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources sem sufficient--that is,unless youreject all Catholic sources for topics dealing with that religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, of course not: I've certainly never made that claim (and actually fight against it in all religious AfDs for their relative religions). I suppose the argument I should have made here was WP:NFRINGE, which requires extensive coverage. This is a conspiracy theory involving living people that hasn't been extensively covered. That's the big issue, not the Catholic sourcing. If one considers the sourcing: CNA I would probably consider reliable. National Catholic Register it depends on the day where they fall on the "nutjob" vs. "good journalism" spectrum. A lot of what they publish is opinion pieces by sensationalist bloggers, but they do have some good content. It certainly wouldn't be up the the quality America (magazine) is regarded as, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of you--I see we agree about the sources. I do not consider this fringe.The existence of factions with the Catholic church is real enough and sufficiently reported. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The factionalism isn't the concern that makes it fringe so much as the idea that there was a organized faction secretly advocating against Ratzinger in 2005, and that it continued in 2013 in an organized manner. That I'd consider a fringe view not really held by any except those within the fringes of the relative Catholic political factions. There is room to disagree, however, and as always I appreciate your views. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keepI believe this is notable based off the above keep !vote and what i could find. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but yeah, it could use some improvement. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Krishnan (actor)

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence that actor has played a major role in any film listed in the article. I may be looking in the wrong places, but a Google search for "Hari Krishnan" found nothing that establishes notability. Appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few exclusive interviews sourced in the article. He has also been credited as "Hari" in films, I guess. Madras and Kabali are his notable films. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor 2050: Per WP:IV interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject. I tried but can’t find a single reliable source that talk about his role in either Madras or Kabali and I hope you are not mixing him with Kalaiyarasan Harikrishnan who played Tamizh Kumaran in Kabali also go with same name Harikrishnan. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:IV is an essay not a policy, AFD is continually recognising interviews as notable sources where they are in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and also when they contain straight prose as well as an interview. Regarding WP:NACTOR he has third billing in an upcoming film and some fifth billings in released films which are reasonably prominent.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course, I'm aware - I watch Tamil films. Sources aren't as freely available for supporting actors as they are in the Western World - but I have attempted to include as many as possible here. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete- At best he is a supporting actor with no work that has been notable, In my opinion until he does more prominent work this page is TOOSOON. FITINDIA 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: New sources and text has been added since this was listed. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable references Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2017 (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. A consensus has emerged that the article should be kept, but revised with a focus on "reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories." Malinaccier (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolo (tank)

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

Appears to be pretty much entirely in-universe content that violates WP:NOTPLOT with no indication of wider cultural significance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be refactored as an article about the series of books and appearances in other books. But 80% of the content is fancruft and would still need to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett:Care to give a revised opinion of keep or delete? Right now your statement amounts to WP:MUSTBESOURCES but I couldn't find any that would allow for a revising of the article that weren't WP:PRIMARY or not significant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is quite popular, getting about 100 views per day. That's because this has developed from the original Laumer stories to become a substantial shared universe with stories by numerous established authors and with a variety of spinoffs such as board and computer games. Because it has grown beyond the work of the original author, it makes sense to keep this as a separate page rather than merging it into the author's page. As for notability, it's not difficult to find sources if one looks, e.g. A Guide to Popular Reading Interests. An additional consideration now is the fresh fears about the dangers of AI and military robots as unmanned drones and tanks are becoming real. Reference is typically made to fictional foresight in titles such as Well-Behaved Borgs, Bolos, and Berserkers and we ought to be able to explain these to readers who can't place the reference. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolos get a single passing mention in one sentence in the intro in Well-Behaved Borges, Bolos and Berserkers. Out of 9 pages. that's not sufficient for notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the guide to popular reading seems to be just a listing of themes and books with a brief note describing the subject in each case, the Bolo series is outlined in a couple of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE is not a sufficient rationale. Your other argument is WP:SOURCESEARCH, but what matters is whether it has more than WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. If one seeks to find information about unmanned drones, they should refer to military robot, not this._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE states that "article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability" and it's easy to find more sources. For example, here's an extensive review of the series. My !vote stands and based upon multiple policies including WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a) not really an extensive review, b) a blog by unnamed contributed. There must be more sources higher on RS scale for this series out there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that you claimed it was a popular page, which I said was not an adequate rationale. I think that, objectively, it's not actually a popular page. 100 hits is pretty small, most popular pages on Wikipedia get thousands of hits a day. So if you're using comparisons of statistics to say it proves notability exists somewhere, then, well, it doesn't really prove much._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recurring SF element and the basis of a shared world used by multiple authors. Artw (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that there is absolutely room for cutting a lot of cruft from this article, and reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories. It's still a keep though. Artw (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it's been picked up by writers other than Laumer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:INHERITED, even if it appears in other books, it doesn't gain notability from those books._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article should be re-targeted to be about a series of books. It currently claims to be a type of fictional vehicle. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki:Comment That assumes anyone will bother to rewrite the article to conform to the book series rather than the tank. Better to use WP:TNT and wait for someone to write a suitable article on the books._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several users appear to be engaged in good faith efforts to improve the article without the use of TNT. Artw (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon there's about 50% more of the article to be excised yet. TNT would be cleaner. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2017 (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's no consensus to delete here after two relists. If a merge is appropriate that discussion can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhaus books + coffee

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

That a funky local store would get local coverage is not a surprise--that's what local papers do. But I contend that the coverage is not broad, deep, and really independent enough for this to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coffee in Seattle#Coffeehouses. This business isn't unique enough or notable enough to have its own article. I found one article in the Kansas City Business Journal that was an in-depth profile of the Bauhaus coffee shop and its history and for a second I thought it was evidence of significant media attention outside Seattle. Then I realized it was actually another Bauhaus coffee in another city, that happened to have the same basic story arc as the Seattle one. Run-of-the-mill, in other words. But still, most of the content fits nicely in Coffee in Seattle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dennis Bratland--I would not oppose a merge of (trimmed) content. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business, just one of hundreds in the city. Absolutely none of this is worth merging to the coffee article. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. It passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses.

The content here would be undue to include in coffee in Seattle. The merge that is mentioned above would be cutting this to 1-2 sentences or even just a list entry. There is no space shortage in Wikipedia and if we have content backed with citations we are not pressed to delete that.

There is no rule that local sources are unworthy of being cited. Yes, this is a local coffeehouse and not of broad international interest, but the sources discussing this are doing so because the place was of interest to local people. Wikipedia already has a precedent of allowing all sorts of local articles to be cited, for example, for biographies of local artists, local art objects, and cultural topics. This article has sources cited over a period of years and that demonstrates that there was lasting interest in the topic from multiple perspectives.

In Seattle this sort of coffeehouse is WP:MILL but in most cities, coffeehouses would not get any news coverage. Seattle is unusual for having a coffeehouse culture where all sorts of coffeehouse trivialities get journalism coverage just because people in Seattle are eager to read that sort of content. This article is a summary of local coverage of local culture and in general, local content has a place on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- "Bauhaus attracts patrons who like to read and study." "The old furniture is part of the atmosphere of the place." Are you joking? This is as run-of-the-mill as it gets! No, Seattle does not have some mystical coffee culture that makes the local coverage of the university paper listing some places to study, a neighborhood weekly noting the opening of a business, or a random blog discussing the atmosphere significant coverage for notability on Wikipedia. Local news around the world covers this sort of stuff too and Wikipedia would be overrun with hundreds of thousands of these articles if that were the bar for inclusion. Please don't point out WP:OTHERSTUFF - art and artists, themselves overrepresented, are not the same. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 I am not joking. Wikipedia is full of articles that say things like "this monument commememorates (something local)" or "this artist's work expresses hope". The significance is not in the words, but instead in the fact that reputable publications found this information important enough to put this kind of information in print. The AfD process is not a critique of what people think is interesting versus what is boring. There is a demographic of people who are interested in reading about coffeehouses and that interest has led to journalism and passing GNG. Check the sources - these are not university newspapers as you say. Even if there were a school newspaper, that combined with other sources can establish notability. Seattle's coffee culture is not mystic but it does meet GNG at Coffee in Seattle which is unusual as compared to most other cities. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from a few sentences in travel guides all the sources I can find are local. As Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says: ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbara (WVS), WP:GNG says specifically that a article that meets those criteria are presumed to meet the requirements, but not guaranteed. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we accept an article with only local reviews, every restaurant in the country that ever had a few reviews in the local paper could have an article, making Wikipedia a restaurant directory. This fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the reason given above by StarryGrandma. MB 02:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses. Just because an article can be deleted doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please list two references that you believe definitely meet the criteria for establishing notability and I may reconsider my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SahabAli^{говорити} 17:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications or notability or significance or that the business has achieved a cult following. Sourcing is local and / or passing mentions not meeting WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. There's nothing to merge, so a deletion is the best option when it comes to nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Local coverage is insufficient to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coffee in Seattle#Coffeehouses seems like the best option. I'm not certain there's enough unique about this coffeehouse to justify including any content there, delete if there's nothing to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the content userfied to create a different article that is more likely to meet WP:LISTN, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers who died before age 50

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

Wasn't sure what to say about this list, now granted a list of who died before 50 is interesting for some (and kind of sad actually), but as you may notice the majority are hundreds of years ago-which is expected. Also the term most famous-most famous to who? Also seems like a original research project. For now I say delete. Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Classical Music. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of composers who died before age 40, and retain only those. That would catch all of the significant early deaths (and let's face it, composers who died young is indeed a "thing"), and avoid the problem that age 50 was not unusually young to die prior to the 20th century. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few that just link to DAB pages also. Wgolf (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Moving the list to the younger cut-off of 40 would eliminate approximately half the list and make it a much more useful and readable and notable list. It might also be useful to make it a sortable table -- that is, sortable by age of death (which should be added for each), by last name, and possibly also by birth year. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could work-also removing the bold font for "most famous" for sure. Either delete or move for now, need more comments of course. Wgolf (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – subjective list. No references whatsoever. Untenable inclusion criteria. There's some literature about composers dying young: instead of looking up that literature (which rather would go in the direction of an article than a list), there's some discussion above about the cut-off age based on all sorts of editor preferences' arguments instead of the only thing that should count: what do reliable sources say? Why exclude John Lennon? Less famous than Fausto Romitelli? Not dead enough? Not a composer to the subjective editor's taste? How about Johann Gottlieb Goldberg? Less famous than Georg Matthias Monn (only known by his name according to the Wikipedia article – while Goldberg's compositions are still occasionally performed)? This is all beyond repair, starting from the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – we have Curse of the ninth (not entirely unproblematic if you ask me, but feasible in Wikipedia); ~~List of composers who composed less than 10 symphonies~~List of composers who composed fewer than 10 symphonies would, on the other hand, be an unreferenceable disaster, comparable in its infeasibility to the list under consideration here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as it should be composed fewer than, and not less than. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, corrected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lekeu? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, there is nothing subjective about facts. Either a composer died before a certain age, or they did not. If they did not, they are excluded from the list. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It aren't the facts that are subjective, it are the inclusion criteria (they were reworded a few times since I wrote my original comment above, but as said below, it only became worse). "Composers dying after age 13.5" is an objective cut-off age, but would make a terrible, subjective, inclusion criterion while no reliable source can confirm that dying at age 13.5 is a "thing" for composers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. Your arguments appear to merely be a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is nothing that precludes List of classical composers who died before age 40 in WP:LISTN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your bludgeoning: you've made that argument below, I'll reply there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Francis Schonken. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing subjective about facts. Either a composer died before a certain age, or they did not. If they did not, they are excluded from the list. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But where are the sources declaring 50 or 40 or any other number as a somehow significant cut-off, when one can find them so easily for 9 as a number of symphonies? Any cut-off is going to be somehow arbitrary, and as your links show both 40 and 50, I don't see a good case for either. "Dying young" is just not a very clear-cut line. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeatedly posting the same link to a Google search without comment, but I can assure you that it does not become any more convincing by simple repetition. The very idea of either of these cut-offs to illustrate the phenomenon of composers dying young is anyway nicely ruined by this article by Tom Service linked below by Francis Schonken, which has among its "died young" list Gustav Mahler, who died at 50 (the article mistakenly gives 51), and is beyond the proposed cut-off. (And amusingly I already suggested him as an example in an edit summary). Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of composers who died before age 40 and edit accordingly. I'd also suggest limiting it to classical composers (perhaps with a title change to reflect that, i. e. List of classical composers who died before age 40. Per Softlavender, this is a potentially useful list which can be improved by simple editing. The cut-off date needs to be lowered to 40 for the reasons given above. The "original research" aspect can be easily fixed by not making judgements on who is the most famous in the list and bolding those names. I've started doing that now. Ditto "unreferenced". It's very easy to add references. There are references for all the entries who have Wikipedia articles (or there should be). I've added one as a sample. I'd be happy to do them all if the list is kept. Note also that there is nothing to preclude adding an introductory paragraph based on the literature in this area. Improve not delete is the way to go here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no literature whatsoever grouping composers who died before age 40 – that qualification attempts to introduce objectivity where there is none. "Dying young" (or synonyms such as "early deceased") appear in literature, not any artificial cut-off age, and certainly not a cut-off age where all reliable authors writing about composers who died young could agree upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - this one looks promising. Any other reliable source confirming that "composers dying before 40" is a thing (WP:GNG does not consider a single reliable source sufficient, and launching Google queries without discrimination about the reliability of everything that turns up, without even checking which cut-off age, if any, is actually used by the source, is alas just missing the point)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Francis, if you do not believe that dying before the age of 40 is dying young, or that Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Chopin et al. famously died young, then I believe you are in the minority in classical music listeners. Your arguments appear to merely be a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is nothing that precludes List of classical composers who died before age 40 in WP:LISTN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The only thing we need is enough reliable sources that confirm that 40 is broadly considered as a suitable cut-off age (and not too many other reliable sources that start from a different cut-off age): your Google search link turns up at least one forum (not a reliable source), the Wikipedia article we're considering for deletion here (can not be counted per notability guidance), etc. etc. Until now composers "dying young" (without giving a precise cut-off age) seems far more spread as a topic than whatever cut-off age for a composer's death. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Compare also List of child music prodigies not List of music prodigies younger than 13 (the hard age delimiter in the article title doesn't seem to work very well for this kind of lists; also the "classical" delimiter is questionable when comparing with that list). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        None of your demands are factors in WP:LISTN. That's even above and beyond the fact that composers who died before 40 gets 4,000,000 web hits, 57,000 GoogleBook hits, 76,000 news hits, -- Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no demands. My !vote is "delete", supplemented with a rationale, that's all. "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables" is a factor in WP:LISTN, thus WP/GNG's "received significant coverage in reliable sources" is a viable consideration. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Composers who died before 40 gets 4,000,000 web hits, 57,000 GoogleBook hits, 76,000 news hits: [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, raw Google searches are virtually unusable in this discussion. "Composers who died before 40" returns zero reliable sources as a Google search — none of that proves anything: that search doesn't even turn up the single book I'm thus far prepared to accept as contributing to the notability of the "Composers who died before 40" topic. Without more than a single acceptable source, this fails WP:GNG. Without a check whether other reliable sources use other criteria for covering roughly the same subject, the article title based on "age 40" would still be undesirable (per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voceditenore: I think your recent changes to the page have acerbated the problem, instead of remedying anything, e.g. your latest which, besides producing a grammatically incorrect lead sentence, made the page fail WP:NOTDIR #7, which is explicit that "Simple listings without context information" have no place in Wikipedia. What is the context of a classical composer dying before age 50 (or 40)? Absolutely none, while (WP:GNG:) classical composers dying before the age of 50 (or 40, or 30, or whatever) is not a topic that "received significant coverage in reliable sources" so that a context could be sketched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have re-added the word "died" which I had inadvertently removed when I copyedited the lede. It is no longer ungrammatical. I do not believe that the page fails WP:NOTDIR #7 which in my view you are interpreting too broadly. Some will agree, others not. That's why the page is up for discussion here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but WP:NOTDIR #7 is an additional aspect to consider now, which it wasn't before your change, whether you agree on that point or not, my main point being that most of your mainspace edits (apart from maybe removing the boldface) were hardly helpful for increasing the odds for this AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Francis you are cherry-picking the wording of WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits or discourages "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions." That has nothing to do with a list of notable classical-music composers who meet a certain noteworthy criterion (and I've already established that this is a noteworthy and much-discussed criterion). Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The current single-sentence introduction to the list lacks all "context information", such a why the topic has any significance to begin with, nor is any context information appended to the individual entries in the list. There was a tiny bit of (unreferenced) context information which was removed from the list intro: context information requiring a reference is imho better than no context information at all, while in the latter case WP:NOTDIR #7 needs to be considered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - this suggestion added in the "further reading" section doesn't help much either: names a few that don't fit under a "classical composers who died before age 40" umbrella (Schumann: 46; Mahler: 51; Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain: not classical composers), and the main subject of the article (Whitney Houston) was neither a "classical composer" nor did she die "before age 40". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have now placed three articles (including the one you noted above from The Guardian) in the "External links" section. They all contain information which can be helpful for writing an introduction to the article, and can also be helpful to the reader in understanding what the "big deal" is about composers who died young. Note that another one which you had summarily removed because only 2/3 of the composers discussed were under 40 when they died was from the BBC Music Magazine. It discusses the possible implications for the development of classical music of the early deaths of Mozart, Purcell, Schubert, and Gershwin). Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re. "... what the "big deal" is about composers who died young" (emphasis added): as I said from my first comment above, the topic is rather "died young" than anything that can be circumscribed by a hard "age" delimiter. Any article title that mentions an age for this topic remains up for deletion as far as I'm concerned. While none of the listed external links refer to an upper limit for age, I've tagged the section as failing our external links guidance: these external links are not germane to the current article title, nor to the article titles proposed above, nor to any of the list definitions that have appeared on the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        They are highly germane to writing an introduction to the list. That is the whole point of external links. They contain material which could be usefully added to improve an article. Your insistence that they coincide with and/or contain the article's actual title is bizarre, but I'm quite happy to live with the tag-bombing. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Re. "They are highly germane to writing an introduction to the list" – not this list, while not one of them combines "died young" with a hard "age" criterion. There's not really a coherent body of reliable source for that, and the suggestion thus kind of misses the point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. If there are any who died at 27, add them to the 27 Club. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [7]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid - arbitrary (and very unfair to those who died at 50+). Smerus (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this title appears arbitrary/subjective, are there any books/articles that specifically discuss composers who died before age 50, not just about those that died young? btw, 4mill ghits doesn't mean much here is 2.1mill hits for "composers who died before 39" and 1.9mill before age 49 so i don't really see the relevance. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to likely OR. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel that the article reads like someone's contribution to a casual conversation; it's an arbitrary pile of facts without any meaning attached to it (which is a no-no on WP). If "composer-lifespan-ology" exists as a scholarly field (which I really doubt!) then we should have an article about composer-lifespan-ology. But not a list. Opus33 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Composers who died young is definitely a "thing". I created this list because I often needed to quickly check which composers died young, and conveniently link to the Wikipedia page about them. My original list was limited to clearly notable composers. A number of lesser-known composers have been added. That kind of devalues the list for a broad audience, although I did find it interesting to see some of the composers added. I have not read all of the comments above, but may attempt to rebut some of the Delete comments a bit later. The suggestion about 40 years is interesting, but for now, I think 50 is valid, especially for more recent composers, since these days, dying before 50 in developed countries is considered dying "early".Tetsuo (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC) BTW, do those of you favoring deletion make the same arguments about the many morbid lists in Wikipedia of pop-culture and even fictional deaths such as:[reply]

Re. "I think 50 is valid, especially for more recent composers, since these days, dying before 50 in developed countries is considered dying "early"" – This is WP:Original research 1.0, and should therefore be rejected as against policy. We don't make articles (and that includes list articles) based on a Wikipedia editor's opinions, but for which not a single WP:Reliable source can be found to support the idea. Further:

"...more recent composers..." – why would "more recent" all of a sudden be a principle on which the list is built? The list contains Jacob Obrecht (not a "more recent composer", not even sure he died before 50, and not even sure "before 50" was considered "young" in his day), but not John Lennon ("more recent", certainly died before 50 and certainly a composer).
"...in developed countries..." – this is definitely a no-no: Wikipedia articles, including lists, should not be built on such biased discriminations.

I don't think we can come to an agreement, anywhere soon, and built on what reliable sources consider to be valid, on a reasonable set of inclusion criteria for this, or a similar, list. I do consider "musicians who died young" a valid topic, which can be supported by plenty reliable sources. "Composers who died before age 50", with or without supplementary even more arbitrarily discriminatory inclusion criteria, is however not sustainable on any level as a basis for a list. Not a single external source has been brought forward which can be shown to have used "before age 50", i.e. 49 or younger, as a valid criterion in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant list that to me meets WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 21 September 2017 (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 per WP:G5 block evasion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hendry Adii Magiic (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR -- No indication of any notability as an actor (only appearance was in a non-notable short film), no significant coverage for a stand-alone BLP. Both CSD and PROD tags were removed by an SPA IP account. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search only turned up IMDb and some Japanese site. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 03:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per G3, G5. Clear block evasion by User:Hendrix Adi Surya. Sro23 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: my speedy nomination was removed by an obvious IP sock, but if this must be AFD'd then it fails WP:NACTOR, it's a sentence about a teenager who appeared in a video two years ago for which I can find no mentions online in WP:RS. Not surprised to learn from Sro23 that this was thrown up here by a long-term sockpuppeteer. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Sheayu Felisha Cute (actress), and admins can look at the edit history of deleted Sheayu Felisha Cute, which was pasted from this article by User:Baru title A. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Sro23: and @Mr. MacTidy: for pointing out the sockmaster and SPI case. ("Long-term" is understatement.) I've blocked and tagged both accounts and deleted the page per WP:G5 for "clear block evasion". Appreciate your help. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:55, 14 September 2017 (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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Barrier America

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

no evidence of notability -- the products mentioned are not novel, nor did they develop them The refs are mostly PR in trade jouranls. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company, most of the refs are advertorials and not fit for use on an encyclopedia. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 00:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bordering on G11 with the product catalogue copy; no indications of notability or significance. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef blocked for sock puppetry and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promocruft about a non notable company. If this is a case of PAID, it was certainly well crafted. However craftily contrived, it is still a promo piece best suited for somewhere other than an encyclopedia about a non notable entity. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (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 for lack of adequate sourcing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devatagal

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

Google search returns nothing and other tools are also showing nothing. No sources. If a source is found, I'll probably rescind the delete request and try to fix it. The Egg of Reason | (Talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's more confusion here than meets the eye. The big clue in this very brief article is the mention of the Basava Sagar Dam. That dam is located on the Krishna River, which serves as a boundary between two districts in Karnataka -- Yadgir district and Raichur district. In Yadgir, there is a town named Devatkal, whose census listing here shows it to have a population of about 3,000. And in Raichur, there is a village named Dewatgal, whose census listing here shows it to have a population of about 1,000. (For both census listings, you need to scroll down a bit to see the list of towns.) So, which one did the article creator intend? If I had to guess, I'd say Dewatgal. But we can't be sure. And because there is so very little content here, the safer course of action is to simply delete the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A1 Speedy. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find anything about the town in my searches, but NewYorkActuary's noting convinces me to sway towards 'Delete'. This was a tricky one, because I was contemplating a move to Dewatgal, but it isn't a certainty that they're the same place. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:58, 22 September 2017 (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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OfficerDown.US}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JerryCo}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Research & Exchanges Board}}<!--Relisted-->