Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 3: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoman Productions}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YNH Films}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YNH Films}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilm Ki Dunya}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilm Ki Dunya}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 07:49, 3 February 2018

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough independent coverage to have an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the subject helped to produce something that was notable is irrelevant. See WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH for notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would prefer that this page should be kept as a redirect to Shoaib Mansoor, since its summary and references are there already. Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to what I said above? Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't struck your original !vote so a closing admin is likely to look only at the reasoning for your Keep !vote. HighKing++ 15:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see it being only WP:ILIKEIT. Shoman Production is separate production company is notable. It is mentioned widely on the internet. Redirecting to Shoaib Masoor is tantamount to deletion and it is not a Keep.There can be room for improvement, but definitely not a candidate of delete or redirect. I am not sure which notability criteria this article is missing. --Spasage (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so you say it is notable, great, but you haven't proved it. You've only expressed an opinon. There are guidelines contained in WP:NCORP that tell you the criteria for establishing notability and you haven't once referenced this guideline (or any other) as a reason to keep. A closing admin will not pay any attention to "opinions" - there must be reasoning based on policy/guidelines. If you can produce two references that are intellectually independent, not based on press releases or other company announcements or interviews, that either discuss the company in depth (and not its "products" or "employees") or contains independent analysis or opinion on the company, then you will have made a strong case for inclusion. Without references of these sort, according to our policies the article must be deleted. HighKing++ 15:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same issue as with previously deleted articles. Company haven't received enough independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing at all in coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. Unresolved notability tag for last seven years. Chetsford (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI have issues with the idea that the number of roles should be important. I suggest it is the type or roles played and not the number. Jimmy Dean was a very small number of movies before died but he has had a tremendous impact to this day. And while I haven’t done my homework on this actor, my point is a universal one: if it turns out that, say, 100 of his roles are listed in the credits as Man in the green coat or Irritable dad at the Little League game, then sure he’s making a living but it doesn’t make him wiki worthy.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to the Orlando Sentinel article that Michig highlighted, there is also this. But beyond these two, I cannot find any significant coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has enough prominent roles amongst his 140 screen credits to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR and also passes criteria 3 having made prolific contributions to his field of entertainment. There is some rs such as Orlando Sentinel and above but more would help. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The mere having of roles is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts an actor from having to be properly referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support an article — the notability claim is not "has had roles", but "has received enough RS coverage to clear GNG for the having of roles". But if all we can actually find for reliable source coverage is one article in his local newspaper and one article in a local interest magazine in the same area, then that's simply not enough RS yet. GNG is not just "can show two local sources" — the list of people we would have to keep articles about if two local sources were all it took to clear GNG includes everybody who was ever fire or police chief or chair of the library board of anywhere, everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere, every non-winning candidate for any political office, every local radio DJ, unsigned bands who don't clear NMUSIC and haven't even recorded an album yet, high school athletes, aspiring local actors who haven't cleared NACTOR yet, aspiring local writers who haven't cleared AUTHOR yet, and my mother's neighbour who found a pig in her yard a few years ago. So even a simple GNG pass requires more than "two pieces of local coverage in the topic's own hometown local media exist", because lots of people of no wider encyclopedic interest could show enough local coverage to "clear" GNG if two pieces of hometown coverage were all it took. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is on a holding company that used to own three radio stations and now owns none. While notability is not temporary, I don't think it was probably ever notable. Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We may want to look into sending them a certificate or something then. Wikipedia isn't really an outlet for giving deserving people/groups recognition. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not based on whether anybody thinks the topic "deserves recognition" or not (a thing which somebody could claim about absolutely anything or anyone that exists at all), but on whether the topic is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear a notability standard. Specifically, a company has to clear WP:CORPDEPTH as the subject of substantial coverage in media that extends beyond the purely local — but the sources here are (1) its own website about itself, (2) a mere blurb about it in a radio industry trade magazine, and (3) the local newspaper's obituary of a former employee, which is about him rather than about the company. Which means the only source here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of establishing this company's notability is #2 — but while it's a start, it's not substantive enough to be a finish all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Then all other articles about small broadcast companies need to be deleted or merged with other articles like California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. was with KOBI. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:XY. It owned three radio stations, not just one, so there's no way to decide that one of them is the appropriate merge target without violating WP:NPOV in the process. Actually, on second thought, KMJC would be an appropriate redirect target, since it was the company's first station and the other two came later. Not sure there's much here to really copy over besides what's already there about it, though. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to IT operations analytics. Sourced material can be merged. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable tech buzzword. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for terms with 91 GHits.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello PinkAmpersand, I've noticed that AIOps stands for both "Algorithmic IT Operations" and "Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations" (in the IT field, these two terms apparently mean the same thing and are used synonymously; for example, this Deloitte document will provide more clarity). Having seen sources like the Deloitte one and others like [1][2][3][4][5] I don't quite feel it's simply a non-notable tech buzzword. What would be your views on the sources I've listed? I'll await your view before taking a call here. Warmly, Lourdes 12:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the sources, Lourdes, but I don't think they change my !vote. That said, at this point I wouldn't object to a redirect to IT operations analytics. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response PinkAmpersand, appreciate it. Quick clarity required (ref my query above: "What would be your views on the sources I've listed?"). In my view, the sources I have provided seem reliable and discuss the subject significantly. Do you feel that's not the case with any of the sources I have provided? Thanks, Lourdes 00:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes: I don't deny that the individual sources cover the subject in depth, but I don't think that the sources, taken as a whole, comprise significant coverage. I just don't see the evidence that this is a concept with any real notability within the tech field. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks once again. You mention you agree that the "the individual sources cover the subject in depth". Our notability guidelines mention that that defines "significant coverage" allowing a topic to have a separate article; which leads me to one final query. When you mention again that you don't feel that "this is a concept with any real notability within the tech field", is this your personal opinion? Thanks, Lourdes 00:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Our notability guidelines mention that that defines "significant coverage" allowing a topic to have a separate article That's not my interpretation of WP:SIGCOV. I interpret SIGCOV as saying that there must be a significant amount of coverage, not coverage that discusses the subject in a significant way. If we included every concept that had a dozen or so mentions in RSes, we'd have an encyclopedia ten times the size that we currently do. And no, that's not a personal opinion, at least not any more than any XfD !vote is. It's my interpretation of policy upon review of the sources provided. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your view. Warmly, Lourdes 00:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator agrees that the "the individual sources cover the subject in depth". Multiple reliable sources as I have listed above, from Gartner to Deloitte to The Register and others discuss the subject significantly within each source. With due respect to the nominator's interpretation of SIGCOV ("I interpret SIGCOV as saying that there must be a significant amount of coverage, not coverage that discusses the subject in a significant way"), that narrow differentiation is not what the guidelines presumably intended. The topic here in my opinion has been discussed by multiple sources and has significant encyclopedic value. Lourdes 00:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting, final attempt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AIOps is a neologism coined by Gartner so it can sell more reports. Gartner originally referred to it as "Algorithmic IT Operations". Gartner subsequently referred to it as "Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations". The reality is that AI and algorithms are two very different items.--Rpclod (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IT operations analytics where AI is already mentioned. Lourdes has done good work in finding a number of sources. The discussion of the use of AI or machine learning on IT operations is clearly out there in the trade magazines and company whitepapers. The issue is whether editors believe those sources to be reliable. Some do, some don't. Perhaps a compromise most of us could live with is to merge this into the analytics article, as most of AIOps coverage seems to be about analytics anyway. That way, readers could learn what AIOps is and as more substantial sources become available, a standalone article could eventually be spun out. --Mark viking (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced article does not pass WP:CORP and violates WP:NOTPROMO Rusf10 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A county sheriff, does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. There is only one source for this article and nothing in the article seems to indicate that the subject did anything particularly notable during his career. Rusf10 (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lots of evidence was supplied of the notability of teams playing in this league, along with a few pieces of evidence of notability of the United Premier Soccer League. But none of those pages was being discussed here. This discussion is about the 2018 UPSL season, and there was no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources of the 2018 UPSL season.
The "keep" !votes outnumbered the "delete" !votes by 7:2, but WP:NOTVOTE ... and in this case, the "delete" !voters offered a reason much better-founded in policy and evidence, viz. that WP:GNG is not satisfied wrt the 2018 UPSL season. Assertions by advocates of keep about the notability of teams are not relevant, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
[reply]

Overturned to Keep per review at WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UPSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are pages for the seasons of similar level leagues like 2017 PDL season, 2018 NPSL season, and 2017 Premier League of America season. There is independent media coverage of the league as well, although the article itself could be improved by referencing this coverage.Bashum104 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
violations of WP:ROUTINE? First of all, there is no such thing as a "violation," it is YOUR interpretation and categorization of the content in order to achieve the goal of eliminating this league. Local newspapers do what they do, cover the local sports teams. They talk about the upcoming season and what happened previously. If you want to say that is routine, then wipe out all the articles for the NFL and ever other sports league because all coverage is routine by that standard. Obviously a ridiculous overreaction. Trackinfo (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you seriously think comparing a league like NFL to this is a fair comparison? NFL gets way beyond routine coverage, as do other leagues like the Premier League, the Bundesliga, Serie A, etc. So far it remains to be seen whether or not this league can do the same, because it hasn't been demonstrated so far. From WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Can you explain to me which part of that I am reading wrong? Jay eyem (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you are reading wrong is the genericized "sports" within that sentence. You are taking too broad an interpretation. If you demote all sports coverage to routine, then you negate the sourcing to ALL of our sports articles. Routine would be a player's total accomplishments being limited to a single mention buried in the agate. That is a huge difference to a full news report that talks about the local team's entire (upcoming) season in a league, repeated in multiple newspapers for each team in that league. An accumulation of multiple sources that shows each team is notable, the league is notable and the season is notable. And that is what multiple editors are demonstrating with naming all these sources.Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I am not negating the sourcing on all other sports articles. Having JUST routine coverage is not sufficient and there needs to be more than an accumulation of sources demonstrating routine coverage for individual teams. There needs to be a more in-depth article from a reliable source about the season itself that goes beyond routine coverage. This has not yet been provided. And just because each team might be notable in its own right does NOT imply that their seasons are notable under WP:INHERIT. Jay eyem (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this upthread and now I'll ask again. Can you give an example from ANY sports league of a source you would feel would demonstrate the notability of a sports season? I really just do not understand what it is you are asking us to produce. Bashum104 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too many references are self interested parties and do not meet the requirements of editorial oversite and control as discussed in WP:RS. Information can be summarized on main UPSL page until (and if) the league gets enough traction to justify separate articles for each season - the US soccer pages are littered with partially complete seasons for leagues that had big dreams but lived a short life and now need to be deleted summarized and cleaned up. Let's do this one right. Keep relevant info on main page and break that info out into a separate pages once the league demonstrates staying power and there will be more Wikipedia s to help do the work and keep the information up to date. Additionally, it appears to me that Too many of the edits on UPSL are by Wikipedians that seem to have either a financial or ownership interest in the league or one of its teams - creating additional neutrality problems that will be difficult for disinterested Wikipedians to monitor Trödel 15:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for clarity, I have no dog in this fight either. I only write about soccer when it associates to my main subject of track and field. However, I have seen this kind of unfair railroad job attacking content in the past. I do understand WP:RS and local journalism. There are other folks who have created a lot of this content and they need help playing defense.Trackinfo (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the understanding that going forward, references must come from a wider variety of sources, and not mainly from upslsoccer.com. I replaced one of these references with a source from the Omaha World-Herald, for example. Santaniego (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Numerous reliable sources per above. Not sure how anyone could claim otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does have reliable sources and we have multiple similar articles for other leagues in the US. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I would like to avoid bludgeoning the process, I feel like the recent arguments being made in favor of keep are not addressing the issue at hand. There needs to be significant, detailed, and beyond-routine coverage of this specific UPSL season that is in question from a reliable source. This has not yet been provided. Similar issues were raised during a recent AfD about a college soccer tournament, and although the analogy is not perfect, some of the arguments still apply. The result of that discussion was to redirect to a different page, in this case it could be to the United Premier Soccer League page itself. There is already a table for the champions of the league by season and the information for this season could easily be included there at the end of the season. Jay eyem (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep requesting coverage that is "detailed and beyond routine." Much coverage has been provided that I feel meets that bar. However, you continually deny that this coverage meets your standards. Twice already in this thread I have asked you to provide example(s) of articles that would be beyond routine coverage for seasons of other notable sports league. You have ignored me both times. This example would be helpful because it would allow us to compare this coverage to the coverage the 2018 UPSL season is receiving. If you provided these examples, we would either 1) be able to find coverage of the UPSL season that meets your standards or 2) be able to determine that no such equivalent coverage of this season exists. Bashum104 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and I already directed you to WP:BURDEN. It's your responsibility to find these sources, not mine. Jay eyem (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I think I misread your comment. The main issue with most of the sources is that they are just routine coverage announcing that a team will be participating in the following UPSL season. It doesn't indicate that the season itself may be notable. The team may be notable (most appear not to be), and the league may be notable, but that does not mean that the season is notable. You need an article that provides in-depth coverage of the season itself. I encourage you to read some of the comments on the AfD I referred to. I also encourage you to userfy the article should it become notable at some point in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no examples in that debate of "non-routine" coverage for seasons of other leagues, which is what I've repeatedly asked you to provide. There is certainly more and better coverage of the 2018 UPSL season than there is of the 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament. Bashum104 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok well then I will re-redirect you to WP:BURDEN and remind you that it is your responsibility to provide these sources, not me. And note, the result in that AfD was a redirect i.e. the article was not kept. I also encourage you to read WP:BADGER. Jay eyem (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one claiming that every source produced here is inadequate. Yet you refuse to produce even a single example of a source that would be adequate? You've set a standard so high that it would be impossible to meet it. I'm not asking you to provide a source for THIS article. I'm asking you to provide a source for ANY article. Is the 2018 USL season notable? How about the 2018 NPSL season? Heck, is even the 2017-18 Premier League notable? Show me an article about one of these leagues that you feel demonstrates notability - that isn't, as you call it, "routine coverage." Show me an article that covers one of those leagues that goes above and beyond the sources we've given in covering this league. Bashum104 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article is in woeful state, but that sources are available that demonstrate notability. Hopefully one of the "keepers" will take some time... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just not a notable CEO. There is not enough coverage of him to pass WP:BASIC. Sourcing in the article is almost non-existent and when I search for him all I can find is a few press releases. Article was deproded by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who I like to thank for leaving an explanation this time, which was "not eligible for PROD his claim is that he is CEO of International Flavors and Fragrances from 2006 to 2009)" While it is a true statement that he was CEO of a notable company, a CEO does not inherit notability from a company. Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. If anyone can't find references, it is time for them to take a refresher course in Internet searching. It is bad faith to declare that no references are available especially when using the PROD process. This is the sixth time PROD was cancelled and references found, and those are just the ones that I dePRODed. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's take a look at the sources you found. You obviously spent a lot of time on this, so I guess these are the best sources out there. We have a Bloomberg profile, which actually isn't a reliable source, despite being on Bloomberg's website it relies on user submitted data. The Colombia Business school staff directory (doesn't do anything to establish notability, all other staff have these) and a few other brief passing mentions that certainly are not in-depth coverage, all routine (ie. he was hired and then he was fired). None of these sources constitute "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Can you point out which part of the biography is original research caused by the lack of significant coverage? You use the word "significant coverage" in every argument, but each time you divorce it from its actual definition. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg article says: "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global." Again a misrepresentaion when you say "it relies on user submitted data". I know we live in a post-truth world, but Wikipedia tries to be accurate, so can you. --RAN (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been had before, see [9] & [10]--Rusf10 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which appears to be just as incorrect as you. They cite no evidence, just as you have not, where I cut and pasted the factual information from the website. Do you recognize the irony that you are using user submitted data from Wikipedia to bolster your argument that S&P Global Market Intelligence is an unreliable source. --RAN (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source is basically created by user submissions. The evidence is that big blue button that says "request profile update." Wikipedia is not a reliable source and neither is this. We already have a consensus not to use these Bloomberg profiles as a reliable source. If you disagree, take it to the reliable source noticeboard.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I see are comments in a discussion, no formal RFC, no formal reliable source ruling, no blacklisting of the website. Nor do I see an edit button on the Bloomberg website that allows users to "basically create" a profile. If you think it is unreliable, the burden is one you to prove your suspicions. A big blue button for "request profile update" shows that site is under editorial control, the opposite of what you are saying. If it wasn't under editorial control the big blue button would say "click here to edit a profile" or "click here to add yourself". If you think anyone can add a profile, please add yourself and show us the link. --RAN (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman's argument, my friend. I never said that just anybody could get listed, I said the information is unreliable. There is a huge difference.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to WP:RS- "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." This clearly falls into that category, so you can't use it.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can use anything that is accurate. You just cannot count sources from self-written or non-editorially supervised blogs towards GNG. There is a difference. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was clear, it would have named the website. You make this argument often. And then you are going to argue that these are just examples, then I am going to say "just substitute in the New York Times" and it clearly means that website too. If it meant this website, it would have mentioned it. This is not the place to make your argument, take it to the reliable source noticeboard. --RAN (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's always your argument, it doesn't specifically say this or that, as if someone could possibly create a list of every unreliable website with user-submitted content in existence. I challenge you to find me the policy that says all sources are considered reliable until it is proven they are not.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the blacklist is for. Take it to the reliable source noticeboard and get it blacklisted. --RAN (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting everyone's time, but I will.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See deletion review
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First off: terribly written article, needs to be translated from telegraphese to plain English. However, there are sufficient available sources for this former Fortune 500 CEO (International Paper does $23.6+ billion dollars of business a year) to support encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Inappropriately nominated. As Nate says below, don't nominate an article and then vote keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Muboshgu has proposed that this article subject may not meet the notability standard for biographies because virtually every reference to the subject mentions that he is the eldest son of Fidel Castro. I bring this here to test that proposition. If this article is kept, it will be because the subject has been determined to be notable, and the notability issue will be resolved in favor of removal of the tag. If, on the other hand, the article subject is not notable, then it will be deleted, and the tag will be moot. bd2412 T 03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is reliably reported that the article subject was the head of Cuba's doomed nuclear program for twelve years, and that he was later the government official designated to announce that the Cuban government supported the Russian annexation of Crimea. The subject's hobnobbing with Paris Hilton and Naomi Campbell at the outset of the reopening of relations between the Unites States and Cuba was also widely reported. Finally, the subject committed suicide while serving as a reasonably high-ranking official in a national government, and this was reported in major news outlets all over the world. bd2412 T 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bd2412. Davey2116 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination was highly inappropriate. I started a talk page discussion as per WP:BEFORE and instead you nominate the page for deletion and vote keep? To try to stave off an actual deletion rationale? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BURO; don't nominate an article and then vote keep. It's a waste of the community's time and the subject is obviously notable, and the discussion should have continued per WP:BEFORE. Also, another inappropriate and unseemly 'in the news because of their death, let's AfD' nomination; we need some kind of cool-off period (perhaps a week) where this can't happen. Nate (chatter) 06:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entreprenuer. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, interviews, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Affiliated with one notable entity, eMusic, but this is an insufficient claim of significance. The company itself sold for $26M, which is low in the tech / entertainment world. The other entities are non-notable. Created by Special:Contributions/Hoffmang who appears to be the subject himself. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associate in Music, University of Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very short stub page with no references and lack of notability. Search online reveals little notable material of which is already covered by the article Associate in Music, Australia. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a procedural level, probably best not to when you're an involved contributor to the discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Due to copyright concerns. May be immediately recreated at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing this nomination, as the article does meet WP:NPOL. However, there are still copyright concerns. I therefore propose that this deletion discussion be closed with the understanding that I will blank the article and recreate it. Marquardtika (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the earlier pro- "Delete" comments seem to not have considered that the subject likely passes NPOL on the basis of being a state senator. This leaves open the question of whether or not to treat this as a presumptive copyright violation. I think further discussion is called for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I not changing my vote, but do believe that he passes NPOL because of his position as state senator. Therefore, I still believe the article should be deleted as a likely copyvio as per Bearcat. However, if the article was recreated properly, I would endorse its existence.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to epistemology it is impossible to prove a negative, that it was copied from somewhere under copyright. The article closely copies his obituary, but that was published in 1899 and is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in public domain, doesn't make it appropriate to copy and paste the whole thing into wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do that all the time. Every initial entry of a US senator or representative was a direct copy and paste from their congressional biography, and we did that to entries from the public domain Encyclopedia Britannica. You are confusing copyright with plagiarism of public domain material. --RAN (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the languages are covered in-depth in-universe besides Dothraki and Valyrian, for which there are already articles, nor are they notable (besides Dothraki and Valyrian) The Verified Cactus 100% 21:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's not much substance to it, we could merge it into the main article. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main article in question being A Song of Ice and Fire? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite extensive searches and checking several sites, I was unable to find any hits for this film, aside from IMDb and mirror sites. In fact, I have a feeling that the film itself doesn't exist, as IMDb seems to be the only place where the film is mentioned. Since it's a 2001 film, offline coverage may exist, but I couldn't find any evidence to suggest that this film was actually made, let alone covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. Significant RS coverage not found. An article on the same subject has been previously deleted as Advisorymandi.com under the G11 criterion for speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advisorymandi is a one of a kind company in India. I think when Wikipedia alleges that some entity is not famous, they probably mean "not globally famous". But I hope they realize, that India is a highly populous country and one of the fasting growing economies in the world. It is entirely possible for an Indian company to have more users (all within India) than some "international" app or website. It s entirely possible for some Indian book or film to sell more copies/views than some book/film from France or Italy. Please note that all the references for this article are from very reputable sources - again sources that may not be well known in the outside world but which most likely have more viewership in India than The Guardian of the UK or La Figaro of France. Also being that India is one of the fastest growing economies, often "unknown" companies of India are actually poised to become some of the biggest in the world - for eg - each of the "low cost airlines" of India, though not well known to the outside world, are actually on their way to becoming among the biggest in the world, bigger than RyanAir even. Same with Advisoryandi - it does not have to be popular outside India. At the current rates of growth, being that it is the market leader in India, it is bound to become bigger than EToro soon.

Wikipedia has to realize that the bulk of their viewership now comes from emerging economies like India, rather than a UK or Australia - and the trend will keep growing for decades to come. You asked about my background - I am not affiliated with any of these entities. I have earned an MBA and am trying to get my own dot com startup going - and so I know a good and promising company when I see one. SO I post Wikipedia articles about them. User:Subho2017


omg - it was almost identical because the reasons hold just as well there as here - Mirraw IS one of the best eCommerce companies of India. It was not my intention to copy-paste anything!! AS for Advisorymandi - as you can see some of the biggest stock market analysis companies of India (eg - Motilal Oswal Group, SMC Global Securities, Religare and Angel Broking) have all participated in their championship and some of the biggest Finance/Business newspapers of India (eg - Economic Times, belongs to Times of India group, Business Standard belongs to Ananda Bazaar Patrika group) have featured stories about Advisorymandi and/or their competition. IF Advisorymandi was such an obscure, run of the mill company, do you think that would happen?User:Subho2017

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, this page is unnecessary, and should just be moved to the Cleveland Cavaliers franchise history. Several reasons for this include how this team was only around for three years, Kevin loves struggled in his role, the team was never recognized as a big three, the team was only able to secure one championship, Team achieve no great success, the team only primarily considered Irving and James as the superstars. Love, lost his superstar reputation in Cleveland. There’s no reason why this page should exist, can someone present arguments to keep it? Jamesjunky (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't know about this one; merging probably makes the most sense but I would like to see other opinions. Sure, there are sources calling them a "Big 3" [11][12][13] but "Big 3" seems to be thrown out for any three good players on a team. Look here, they even consider the team with Dwayne Wade as the "New Big 3" [14] so is it really a notable standalone subject or an overused title? Individual success, championships, and "star" status are irrelevant, but the nom isn't wrong for starting this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It gets tossed out a few times, but it hasn't gotten much traction because, as the nominator points out, there really aren't three. Also delete Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (See below). This is a very well-sourced, informed article, and is tricky to opine on due to its overall fine quality. However, I elect to vote for delete for several reasons:
  1. As mentioned before, phrases such as "Big 3" or "Big Three" are significantly overused, and can apply to any three better-than-average players on a sports team.
  2. The article is meant to interpret recent Cavaliers franchise history in a way that unfairly bolsters these three men above the contributions of other team members, but fails to do so, because...
  3. the article's text, instead of detailing the three individually, or what the trio did together, proceeds to detail what the whole Cavaliers team did each season, especially when against the Warriors.
  4. If this article were to be kept, that could set a precedent for other pages to be created with the purpose of emblazoning three above-average players on the same "successful enough" team.
The Cavaliers team featuring these three men went to the NBA finals all three times, winning once. However, the three were only briefly together and were probably only referred to as the "Big Three" in passing. Therefore, I do not believe the issue is with notability, but with interpretation. The information in this article can be allocated to pre-existing pages. The bar, I believe, should be higher for NBA trios to have their own page (good example: Big Three (San Antonio Spurs), featuring Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker). While this Cavaliers trio had accomplishments, this page would be more relevant if the three stayed together for much longer and/or made possibly unparalleled NBA history with each other.
I also agree with Clarityfiend that the page for the Oklahoma City Thunder Big 3 should be tossed. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Mungo Kitsch: What are you thoughts on what a good minimum bar would be? For example, would Big Three (Miami Heat) be OK becuase they won one extra championship (2) and played one more season together (4)? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question. In my opinion, the Miami Heat Big 3 page can be kept, because of their 4-of-4 finals appearances, and also because of the media attention surrounding them when LeBron joined the Heat. When LeBron re-joined the Cavaliers, that event had no equivalent to The Decision.
As for some minimum qualifications, I would propose that whatever trio in question be together over a long-term period, such as at least five or six years (with Heat exception, due to media attention and 100% Finals appearances; also, four seasons is a better sample size than three and has more long-term qualities). The trios should have >/=90% winning/playoff seasons, and frequent appearances in NBA finals or conference finals (let's say >/=66.7%).
While these minimum qualifications are by no means final, and can be brought to consensus if necessary, I think it's a start. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources There are a number of sources that refer to the as "Big Three" and discuss the grouping:
    1. "Cavs, 'Big three' kick off new season with first practice". Fox 8. September 27, 2014.
    2. "Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love: LeBron's Future Is In Their Hands". GQ. October 3, 2014.
    3. "LeBron James, the Big Three and Basketball Revolution". The Paris Review. February 5, 2016.
    4. "Cleveland Cavaliers: LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love have been big producers against Pacers". The Morning Journal. April 19, 2017.
    5. "What NBA Finals Game 7 revealed about each of Cleveland Cavaliers' Big Three". The Plain Dealer. July 29, 2017.
    6. "Cavaliers' Tyronn Lue vows to make Kevin Love bigger part of offense". ESPN.com. May 11, 2017.
    7. "Warriors have the best Big Three in the NBA. And the second best. And the third". The Washington Post. October 18, 2016.
While it can be argued that it's a non-original term that is over used in NBA coverage to apply to three stars of a team, there's little doubt the "Big Three" was often applied to Cleveland's trio of James, Love, and Irving.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Most relevant in rebuttal to the nomination, WP:N states that "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." This Cleveland grouping was covered extensively over a sustained period, even if Big Three is a cliché for star NBA trios or if there are better threesomes in league history. I'm not keen on the current format and content of the article, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and independent of its notability.—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By this trash logic we can apply that to OKC’s current team, the current Timberwolves team, and current the Celtics team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.178.120 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but... I stand by my expressed concerns when I initially voted delete. However, after giving the article and the situation considerable thought, as well as factoring Bagumba's collection of sources affirming that Love, LeBron, and Irving are a "Big 3", I have changed my opinion on whether or not to keep the article. After all, the trio's 3-of-3 finals appearances are significant.
With that established, I propose, in order to further justify the existence of this article, that all three members of the trio have their own brief entries on the page, detailing info such as their stats and how they arrived onto the Cavaliers roster. This would be in a style similar to the equivalent San Antonio Spurs page (the page has three content concern tags at its head, dated from August 2016, but that's another ball of wax).
In conclusion, if and when future "Big 3" pages are made, they should be made with discretion and respect. I would suggest that such pages be made in retrospect once the trio(s) are disestablished, or when the trios are already well-accomplished after, say, 5+ seasons. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* This page makes no sense. LeBron James carried the team to a finals with Kyrie Irvin in 2015, in 2016 Love was benched because of how badly he played, and in 2017 Love played well. This is a terrible overexaggeration. The 2013 Lakers were a Big Three as well who got massive media coverage. This is a dangerous precedent to set because the term Big 3 will lose it's value. The Spurs trio had over a decade of coverage and legacy while the 2012 Heat were marketed as a Big 3 to start with. What we have here is Irving, James, and a solid role player in Kevin Love. This does not deserve a Wikipedia page, it deserves to be in the Cav's franchise history. 35.1.103.105 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. overly specific and better dealt with in more general articles about the team DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.221.197 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I think we need to look beyond the GNG for articles like this. There are many groupings of athletes that can be shown to have received coverage in the media, but that doesn't mean that all of those groups need their own Wikipedia pages. There's nothing in the current article that makes me understand why this particular Big Three is interesting or unique. The bulk of the article is generic game recaps that can be presented elsewhere. I could support an article on Miami's Big 3, given the hype and controversy surrounding their founding. I could support on article on Detroit's "Bad Boys", given that they had a distinctive style of play. But the Cleveland Big 3? How much more can you really say that you can't say somewhere else? I realize that none of this is grounded in specific guidelines or policies, but I really don't think we should be encouraging articles like this. I'm not crazy about the Spurs article, either. That one is little more than game recaps and selective use of statistics. Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It feels like we need to come up with a standard for what constitutes a notable "big three" in basketball - it is a very common sportswriter device. I kind of agree with Zagalejo that even if mentioned in the press I have a question if it is actually notable in this case or if it was just a hype mechanism. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple, or even a lot, of references in the sports media don't make for notability and an independent article. There's so many of those threes, and before you know we'll have all of them, with not just teams in parentheses but also years. I was thinking Twin Towers (San Antonio Spurs) might be a better case, but that one also is already bad enough--half the article is a summary of the biographies of Duncan and Robinson, and the rest is a recap of the Spurs during their careers, as if it only takes the two of them. I have no doubt that articles can be written on sets of players in a team because of their interactions, tensions, successes--one thinks of Kobe and Shaq, and I am somewhat surprised that Stockton to Malone is a red link: those sets are verifiably notable, more notable than this one, which was only together for a few years anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Do you mean to argue here that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST so this should be deleted too, or that it is WP:UGLY and should not be left to improve? Or that it meets GNG but WP:IAR because this isn't encyclopedic? Do you think groups of players can be Wikipedia-notable even if they are not all Hall of Famers like Stockton–Malone or Shaq–Kobe? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bagumba, I am giving arguments for why I think this is not notable. You can throw a bunch of acronyms at the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks, but that does not matter much to me. I am saying "delete because these run of the mill mentions don't establish notability". Except that I am trying to do it in more words, as a service to the reader. I didn't use "Hall of Fame" as an argument, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. But OK, if you want to know why the Stockton-Malone connection is Wikipedia-worthy, in my opinion: [18], [19], [20], and this. You can't do that for this set of players. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable made up concept. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of telecom companies in India. Ugh, it looks like somebody moved this in the middle of the AfD. Folks, please don't do that. It just makes it that much more confusing to sort out when closing these discussion. In any case, the gist of this discussion is that there should be one list instead of the myriad ones we've got now. So, I'm going to redirect all of these:

to point to List of telecom companies in India. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is a listcruft. There is an almost similar template Template:Telecommunication companies of India and an article Mobile network operators of India, which is about the same thing.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind which one is kept, just that there should not be three of them. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Why not? North America1000 15:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are all the same subject and mostly the same content, it would make more sense to focus efforts into one or two lists. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Struck my !vote upon further consideration. North America1000 11:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged both the articles and since the other article is new, have proposed speedy on that. If speedy is done on that then I suggest this AfD to be closed as Keep. Hagennos (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Keep the article in it's current state. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
The article was not speedy deleted and this is still a duplicate. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article does not have much notability, 2 sources are not reliable as Language of Love is more of a story than history and the Indian Portrait is an Art Gallery book, the only reliable content we can get tells that he was a commander in Siege of Chittorgarh during 1567-1568 and was killed by Akbar, and this information is already covered in the article Siege of Chittorgarh (1567--1568) so the article should be redirected to the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568). Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article meets the criteria's of redirection, it is fine to redirect it. But as much I think, article has lack of online references. But it is not based on stories. It is a real character of history. If we will collect history books, we can collect data. I don't know much history of the corresponding region.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books is just an Art Gallery, and the other book does not seem historically reliable, as the author himself is not an academic historian, rather an author. The person is real and mentioned, but his reliable mentions do not signify his notability. --Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Please correct (herself -> himself). Yes, Jaimal was not a ruler. He was a Siege. I agree with redirection but what about page history?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected herself -> himself. Thank you for telling me. When a page is deleted its history is also deleted, or archived. I don't know that as I'm not an administrator but that does not matter. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Thanks for correction. What about a Siege? Are siege not notable for a wiki article?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siege is notable but the article already exists about Siege of Chittorgarh (1567-1568). So when the article exists already which has the information, than why can't we redirect Jaimal to it. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I want to understand it a bit more. Like there is an article Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, so we shouldn't keep 7 different pages for the 7 scientists (If we don't have sufficient online references.). I think!☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts are considered notable if they have undertaken a space mission. That has no relevance here Hagennos (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hagennos: Because, we have sufficient online sources for them! If I could get sufficient online sources for Jaimal Rathore, it could be.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Astronauts who has been to space as is the case with High schools they are generally considered as notable by community consensus. So the number of references do not really matter. Notwithstanding if there are enough reliable independent references to meet WP:GNG then there is not question. Hagennos (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I want to say. Since, I am not a history student but whoever have read the history of Rajasthan at high school standards, also know about Jaimal Rathore and can be found in history books of Rajasthan. Even pocket books (of history) like Maharana Pratap have notified Jaimal. Some Hindi newspapers also notified Jaimal for many times (eg.) Surely, I agree that he is not that much notified as much Astronauts are.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he is notable, but as I've mentioned several times before, we don't know anything about him in reliable sources except his role the Siege of Chittorgarh, that is why redirection is necessary. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's probably a lot of work to be done here, but I do see some WP:RS for this person:

[1]

[2]

[3] Finding those didn't take a lot of work. This seems notable to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding online sources, mentioned above, please note there's no requirement for sources to be online. It's certainly more convenient if they are, but paper sources are perfectly acceptable, if cited properly. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note - the last two are mirrors of Wikipedia and not WP:RS at all. The first one is one of a hundred fake fronts for the "World Heritage" mirror - they provide minimal licensing through that "citational source" link which directs back to the deleted article here. The second is clearly labeled as a mirror. Kuru (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read them more carefully. You're certainly correct about the two wikipedia mirrors. Striking my whole comment. And @DGG:, just in case his comment was predicated on the (non) sources I found. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources only mention his role in the Siege of Chittor, as said many times before, the notability here does not matter as much as the information around him. All the info here is already in the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567-1568) article. No reliable sources tell about his background or some other notable incident in which he participated. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the central gutenberg project source, that source is from a third party site which is not the official site of World Heritage Encyclopedia and it is not written by any historian, so it is not reliable and the guttenburg source says that Patta was Jaimal's son, which is wrong as Jaimal was from the Rathore clan and Patta from the Sisodia clan. And for that Commanders book in Google books, please mention the page in which Jaimal and Patta are mentioned. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Jaimal was not just the ruler of Merta, he was also "granted the Jagir of Badnor in 1554 by the Maharana of Mewar for services rendered." - The Indian Portrait (p. 82) [21], that included "Badnor with a thousand villages" - Unfamiliar Relations: Family and History in South Asia: Honoring the Family - Notes (p. 71) [22]. Also, an article in Swarajya magazine - Forgotten Legends: Women Of Chittor Who Were Warriors, Rulers, Administrators, And Poets [23] talks of Akbar being so impressed with Jaimal's defence that he had a statue made of Jaimal and his co-commander and they stood at the Dehli Gate of the Red Fort for hundreds of years. oh, and heres an article from Hindustan Times - Sit rep: Jaimal and Patta, valiant defenders of Chittorgarh [24], that adds some more about Jaimal including "Jaimal also had the experience of command at the siege of Merta in 1562-63 against Akbar’s general, Sharfuddin." Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Available references, some of which are mentioned in the previous !vote and a couple of which I added to the article, do discuss other aspects of Jaimal's role in ruling and defending Merta, as well as his role at the the Siege of Chittorgarh, satisfying both GNG and getting past any "known for one event" issue. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is interviews, passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability, such as interviews with executives: [25]. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and in general looks to be part of a promotional campaign. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

      The article notes:

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

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

      ...

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

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

      The article notes:

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

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

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

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

      The article notes:

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

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

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

      The article notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. The keep votes cite convincing policy-based rationales and are more numerous than the delete votes. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable and previously deleted article. Still fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Just another case of WP:TOOSOON. Stanleytux (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete this article. Nakon 04:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advertisement, with no acceptable sources for notability , and no reason to think there will be any. The awards are utterly trivial. The references are to mere announcements. Added in 2008, G11 declined--which may have ben correct by the low standards of that time--and made worse by single purpose editors editors since then. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toohool, clearly there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is well-known company here in Colorado, and it's an important part of the economy of Colorado and other states. With some editing to provide a more-neutral tone, the article will be useful. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Every "keep" vote here has made hand-wavy claims citing zero sources or policies. AfD is not a Facebook "like" contest. I have cleaned up the article further. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though this company is a publically quoted company and has been established for quite some time, none of the references above or within the article meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. Articles that are extensively based on quotations and interviews with company personnel or other "connected" people are considered PRIMARY sources and therefore fail to establish notability and may also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. If the reference is based on quotations and interviews but *also* contains substantial intellectually independent opinion/analysis, then the reference probably meets the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately, I don't believe that any of the references provided manages to meet the criteria. But ... WP:LISTED specifically states Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. To that end, this reference lists a number of analyst firms and banks that cover this company and states that "Several other analysts have also recently issued report on NGVC". This reference also provides a list of analyst opinions. Since I am not a customer of any of the brokerage arms of these banks or a customer of any of the analyst firms, I cannot attest that the analyst reports actually exist ... but I think it is reasonable to assume that they do. On that basis, it meets the criteria WP:LISTED. HighKing++ 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their reasons are:

WP:V: No sources whatsoever, borders on OR and even if it isn't, the article's primary subject being Indian political parties would require it cites its sources since WP:NOTBLUE would apply, if such knowledge is obvious to readers in India (and then, WP:PARIS could also be valid). Also, I don't know if I'm abusing the criteria, but this falls remarkably short of WP:DIRECTORY. No context, no additional information about linked articles. This needs to be thoroughly checked, along with other topic articles (ex. Elections in Sikkim) and other articles by the creator who has been warned multiple times about creating unsourced articles. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion on the matter. Reyk YO! 14:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, completely legit article subject, that can easily be expanded with prose. Remember that Sikkim was an independent state with a number of political parties prior to integration with India. --Soman (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the page does have potential and can be useful for anyone interested in Sikkim politics. But it has a long way to go. Instead of it being a stray list with minimal, if any, context, every current and former party should have at least a cursory explanation regarding their history, accomplishments, political stances (economic, social, legal, governmental, etc.), and notable people (such as elected officials). Once this page is given greater expansion and more details, then it can be more maximally useful than it currently is. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seeing no in depth coverage (in fact very few mentions that would pass the RS test), and as a record unlikely to have lasting notability (after all it will only be famous until a bigger one is made). Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Over half the sources are primary, and thus do not establish notability, so what in depth coverage is left?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Alerting creator of this version, WP:Spa Mike13589. Did redirect to the election, which was reverted. Boleyn (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Boelyn has made an subjective claim that suggests this notably historic figure does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG standards. Since these guidelines are arbitrary, I suggest performing a brief search through news articles to discover how prolific this person of note is. There are countless articles citing him and his work in reference to their impact on local elections in his state. In addition to his run for office, he has been a noteworthy activist in state politics, with publications going as far as describing him as "synonymous" with the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign - a non-profit that has informed and been cited by several national newspapers covering Wisconsin politics. In addition to this, in addition to his run for office and in addition to his newsworthy book, he has also founded another state political watchdog group called Blue Jean Nation, which has also been featured by prominent news organizations.[4]. I have been trying to learn more about this figure since he began running for office, but without a Wikipedia page, I've been forced to look through countless articles to learn more. I consider a Wikipedia page to be fully justified, if not overdue at this point, especially since omitting him may affect the state election. Thank you for your full consideration on this subject. Mike13589 20:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the WP:NPOL guidelines, they cite reference 8, which states: "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists," qualifies as a politician of note. I believe that the several news feature articles and political articles that have been cited may count toward this criterium. Please review. Mike13589 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:GNG claim: "If a topic has received (a)significant coverage in (b)reliable sources that are (c)independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (a) Significant coverage: This person of note has been featured in several interviews, has been cited as a source of information and is generally considered a large political actor in the state. (b) Reliable sources: all of the cited sources are taken from established news organizations, including the associated press, the NY Times and Politifact - with the exception of a quote taken from and attributed to the mission statement of the organization directed by this person of note. (c) Independent of the subject: As mentioned, all sources are taken from reliable and independent news organizations with the exception of said quote. I understand that there is a possibility that this topical person of note may not be published despite the presumed suitability demonstrated, but I do not understand how this article is in violation of WP:GNG. Please elaborate. Mike13589 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doubt if it has notability. – 333-blue, 11:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MER participated in the biocreative international competition (http://www.becalm.eu/pages/biocreative) with top results and its publication has more than 200 views on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316545534_MER_a_Minimal_Named-Entity_Recognition_Tagger_and_Annotation_Server. --Xicouto (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete and salt. As the author admits here, "no one knows about him". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined speedy because article doesn't meet speedy criteria, but this this discussion (sadly) illustrates that it does not meed the critieria for notability (especially venerability).

Previously existed as Nandikolla Gopala Rao. Note to closing admin: may be necessary to salt. Tóraí (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin: one might look at the author of this article, as they do odd things like create articles that are very close duplicates of existing ones...104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable, somewhat amateurishly-produced relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded by article creator who on the talk page and in edit summaries claims that this meet NJournals#2 by adding a few citations to some articles published in this journal. However, articles from notable journals will be cited at a minimum hundreds of times, so the handful of citations shown by GScholar does not even come close to meeting NJournals#2. Clearly does not meet NJournals (let alone GNG), hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with merging this to North Sea (publisher), if it existed/was notable. But it doesn't, and is probably unlikely to be notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – here is a selection of citations demonstrating that it fulfills C2 of WP:NJournals. User:Randykitty's assertion that an item needs to be cited "at a minimum hundreds of times" in order to be notable appears to be a statement of opinion, as there is no such requirement expressed within WP:NJournals itself. Here is a selection of instances where J Energy Chall Mech has been cited in well-established sources (list is non-exhaustive):
I can't argue with the fact that this journal is relatively new, but I would argue that it is notable in part precisely because, despite having only published 13 issues in 4 volumes thus far, it has already been cited numerous times in such major publications.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, the most highly cited article from this journal has 15 cites, the next one has 4 cites, then two with have 3 cites, and then a dozen or so with 2 or 1 cites. With an h-index of ~2, this is nothing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Headbomb. On rare occasions, a journal can be notable even before it attracts many citations, if the act of founding it received sufficient coverage in multiple independent sources. That does not appear to apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. put simply, not yet notable-- and , considering that it is essentially a device to publish papers from a single series of non-notable conferences, not likely to ever be. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledipples (talkcontribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Footwear News Achievement Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This awards program, a promotion by the trade magazine "Footwear News," is only sourced to the magazine itself. A BEFORE fails to find any other acknowledgment of the awards. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2015's event got some coverage outside of Footwear News, although mainly because Kanye West picked up an award for his shoe.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58] I don't know why this year has a page and no other years do; it might be better to have one article on the history of the awards which could include a list of winners for each year. Rihanna won something in 2016, also getting a lot of press, and fashion trade papers like WWD seem to cover it every year. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A dietary supplement. The article was speedily deleted as WP:G11 (wholly promotional). Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 16 concluded that AfD should make this decision. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to War in Donbass. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

"an informal international association of countries and world organizations that are the allies of Ukraine in hybrid war" looks like a random list of "### supports Ukraine" links. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Criteria for speedy deletion A7 is contested, thus requesting discussion. Jusjih (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because:

--AAAAA (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • 1. The brand has over 2 Million results in Google, as you can see here:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=lB5hWrPlGcKvzwLw_YmwDQ&q=Flashforge&oq=Flashforge&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0l6.342987.344874.0.345747.10.10.0.0.0.0.153.848.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.848...46j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i20i263i264k1j0i46k1j0i10k1.0.hG4WDfe0VnQ

  • 6. There are not thousands or even hundreds of 3D Printer Manufacturers in the world. In wikipedia's own List of 3D Printer Manufacturers there are only 30 Manufacturers. I believe that Wikipedia should have an entry for every single one. 3D Printing is still a nascent industry and one day it will probably be of substantial importance in Industry. Every single 3D Printer Manufacturer that exists right now has the potential of becoming one of the main manufacturers in the future.
  • 7. FlashForge has MANY patents. Run of the mill companies have no patents or maybe a couple.

--AAAAA (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is a very recognized and widespread brand. If you search for "3D Printer" on google, (Which I did: I bought one) many of the seach results will be printers produced by FlashForge. The article may be bad, but it's still a very notable topic and should be kept so it can be expanded by others later. L293D () 15:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D: I can't find any independent reliable sources, what makes you say it's a very notable topic? Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ильина Оля Яковна: Their products speak for themselves. If you search "3D Printer" on amazon, more than ten percent are FlashForge 3D Printers. Other than that I must say you're right that there are not many references about it. L293D () 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but which policy are you basing your comment on? I can't see anything that says popular products are inherently notable, and all the policies I have read say there have to be independent reliable sources for a company to be notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So that Pontificalibus's list of potential sources can be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Let anyone interested fix the article in draftspace. It's not ready for article space although there is some coverage of the company and its products. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - At present, the article is a poorly written promotional brochure with no independent references to support notability. However, other comments above indicate sources are available.--Rpclod (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't think that usefying a poorly written promotional brochure with no independent references is a good idea. If the company is notable (of which I'm not convinced) then a non-COI editor would eventually create it -- in a neutral fashion and with proper references. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. Userfying spam is not what AfD is for. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we decided whether it's notable in this discussion? Once that is determined, the article can either be improved or deleted. I see no purpose in either userfying it, or deleting and recreating it. If we don't determine notability now, then that's a big disincentive for a non-COI editor to recreate it, since it might subsequently be renominated and deleted. --Pontificalibus 12:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this subject to be non-notable, hence my !vote above. I was making a point how little if makes sense to userfy the current content, i.e.: none at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Pontificalibus's list of potential sources. All of the references are reviews of one product or another manufactured and sold by Flashforge. None of the references provide any in-depth information on the company itself. Notability is not inherited. If the company was notable, it should be possible to find references that meet the criteria for estalishing notabiltiy and none have been produced to date. HighKing++ 18:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: as non-notable place; fails NGEO. Quis separabit? 02:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it meets the requirements of both WP:V and WP:NGEO, it just takes some effort and knowledge to find the information. In the book "Genealogies, Tribes & Customs of Hy-Fiachrach: Commonly Called O'Dowda's Country, By John O'Donovan" on page 2, the place is mentioned. Also on page 4, there is about 4 paragraphs of information which says the name is "still well known", which seems to agree with whats stated in the article. link to book (link to book may not work, in which case try Google books). However, it also clearly says the name is anglicised as Killovyeragh, so the title here is incorrect. The policy simply says that all populated places and official designations are notable, even if they no longer exists, this seems quite clear to me, as this was an officially designated subdivision of Ireland, it is notable despite having been abolished since. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Here is another copy at archive.org referencing Killovyeragh that you might use for a citation and with no references or citations to support the article it is less likely to be kept. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
I added that as a citation, also I found the ordnance survey letters clearly used by the original author and added those those as a citation also. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Silver Star and a Military Cross, both third level, aren't enough to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. He gets mentioned for what he did to earn those honors in a couple of books,[59][60] but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No biographical information actually included, aside from name. Unfocused and confusing article. Not clear how it helps in understanding any topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Trick 'r Treat. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trick 'r Treat: Days of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced, fails GNG. No major activity since 2016. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 05:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominating for deletion because unclear what the subject's notability is. Tóraí (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist for further comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Commanders". Retrieved 2018-02-10 – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Central, Project Gutenberg. "Jaimal and Patta | Project Gutenberg Central - eBooks | Read eBooks online". central.gutenberg.org. Retrieved 2018-02-10.
  3. ^ "Jaimal and Patta". Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. Retrieved 2018-02-10.
  4. ^ Martens, Bill. "Blue Jean Nation Writer Says Wisconsin Has Lost Its Ambitious Spirit". Wisconsin Public Radio. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin Educational Communications Board. Retrieved 26 January 2018.