Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of shipwrecks in 1816. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane (ship)

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

ANOTHER non-notable ship like John (1803 ship), the fact that it existed and subsequently sank is not notable. The only available source is seemingly the book listed on the page, and that ain't enough to make it notable. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 23:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - loss covered in List of shipwrecks in 1816. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notableLyndaship (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this can be added to a list. The ship is mentioned in the Australian National Shipwreck Database.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the decision compatible with arguments put forth so far, presumably with List of shipwrecks in 1816 being the target. We are supposed to consider wp:ATD and choose alternatives to deletion, one reason being to reduce churning in creation and deletion of articles and the horrible consequences of destruction of editors' interest in participating in Wikipedia. The ship is apparently notable enough for an entry in the list-article {consistent with our standards for list-item notability being lower than for separate-article notability). --Doncram (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete to List of shipwrecks in 1816. Content already in this article to be expanded from merge of currently separate content. Not sufficiently notable in its own right for a separate article. Note delete rather than redirect due to ambiguation of Jane (ship). There are many such ships over the years. (If not delete then it would need some non trivial work to create the disambiguation page for the many many such named marine vessels.) Aoziwe (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VOR Technology

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

No substantial coverage in unrelated reliable sources, doesn't satisfy WP:N. Being #498 on a list of fastest growth (which could mean, for example, rising from one-millionth to one-two hundred thousandth) isn't inherently notable. Largoplazo (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 9 refs none of which support notability, they are routine company listings, trivial, unrelated or 404. Szzuk (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooru

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is also uncited, and has no categories.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD Cesdeva (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say to soft-redirect to Wiktionary, however, no entry for "Ooru" exists there, so delete per WP:NAD. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:38, 9 April 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! 15:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso A'Qen-Aten Jackson

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

Subject does not currently meet notability criteria, e.g. Notability guidelines for actors. I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources. This person appears to have mainly worked as an extra or in minor roles, and Wikipedia is not IMDB. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NACTOR; I can't see any credited roles for Jackson other than as an extra. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an updated credit in Black Lightning Season 1 Episode 12 that aired on 4/10/2018 in which this actor is credited on & there are a host of other credited projects that are awaiting release in 2018. He also received an award as an actor on the rise in the 2018 Atlanta Actors awards.DCCLXXVII (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DCCLXXVII: Please re-read WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, (actually, all of Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:GNG. Simply being in films or TV shows, credited or not, is insufficient. The Atlanta Actors Award, assuming it is the same as this one, is not a well known award. We need significant coverage of the subject from multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject . Promotional coverage, press releases, passing mentions, self-published, or coverage in non-reliable sources do not demonstrate notability. While the subject may become notable in the future, Wikipedia does not jump the gun to cover subjects before they are become known (lest we perpetuate outright promotion), and it currently appears too soon for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not IMDB, nor LinkedIn. And if you are affiliated with Mr. Jackson, paid or otherwise please review conflict of interest guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:14, 16 April 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. Sandstein 16:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steamworks Brewing Company

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

Not notable, no reliable sources. Of the three sources currently offered, one is Steamworks' own site,[1] and the other two are jocular blogs[2][3] in The Vancouver Sun about a special beer brewed to celebrate the Sun's 100th anniversary in 2012. TheSun may well be a reliable source for some things, but hardly when blogging about their own anniversary. Google finds evidence that the company is well promoted, but I don't see any independent coverage that goes to notability. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While most of the immediately available sources are local papers with not much to report on, hobbyist blogs, or review sites, there's a surprisingly large amount of coverage, and a fair amount of it is usable. For example, CBC has covered the brewery many times (1 2 3 4), including this example citing Steamworks as the originator of a new brewing process. These articles, combined with a mention in HuffPost and the hundreds of local news site articles should be enough to establish notability. Sellyme^Talk 04:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to paste the text from the above source saying they demonstrate a new brewing process:"We saw Vancouver's first version of this style of beer, Steamworks' Flagship IPA, win the best IPA and best in show at the 2016 B.C. Beer Awards," she told On The Coast host Stephen Quinn. "[Hops] are added at the end of the boil, and dry-hopped during fermentation. This adds a lot of hop flavour and aroma, but very little bitterness... Cloudy and juicy! Generously hopped with Mosaic, Galaxy and Citra hops for an intense tropical fruit aroma and just a touch of bitterness. Available by itself in six packs of bottles, or as part of eight-pack tall-can mash-up packs." Sorry, but "intense tropical fruit aroma and just a touch of bitterness" does not amount to SigCov.104.163.158.37 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need referencing improvement as written, and should certainly be flagged for that, but Sellyme has demonstrated that reliable source coverage does exist to get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sellyme, but agreed that more refs would be preferable. Calm Omaha (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the majority of the coverage is short mentions like this one: ""The Flagship IPA is a Northeast style IPA. This is a cloudy and juicy IPA like those made famous in Vermont, as opposed to the clear, pine and citrus West Coast IPAs we're used to: 6.7 per cent, available at their Vancouver and Burnaby taprooms." This is not only the opposite of SIGCOV, it is also basically an AD.104.163.158.37 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill craft brewery with no indications of notability. Most articles are either quotations/interviews with the founders or reviews of the beers which is a normal part of marketing for this type of product. There is no in-depth intellectually independent coverage on the company which is what is required to establish notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have plenty of news coverage that can be used to expand the article. 104, just because a source doesn't use a neutral and dispassionate tone like a Wikipedia, it doesn't mean we can't pull the basic facts out and rewrite the prose in WP's voice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 10 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alisson Abarca

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable pageant winner. A BLP with insuffient reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Created by Special:Contributions/NuestraBelleza2017 currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dxow981. Also edited by another blocked sock farm (Special:Contributions/Medianadia). Delete per WP:DENY. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of substantial coverage to show notability and pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Competing at the highest level of her field is a reasonable claim to notability -- one that is used by virtually every WikiProject that covers structured systems of organized competitions. So long as the fact of participation at that highest level can be verified (and, here, it can), then even a stub article is acceptable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete winning this national pageant does not confer automatic notability, and media coverage of this pageant winner does not suffice to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Haven't got time to evaluate this further.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, I'm not asserting notability merely on the basis of winning a national pageant, but also on the fact that the subject participated in a competition that was viewed by something on the order of 1 billion people. Also, the six or seven (I've lost count) sources added by Milowent and myself bear out the presumption that such sources existed. I also note that two of the sources I added were not from the subject's native El Salvador, but from Mexico and Peru. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources being added show that she is notable as a national pageant winner from a country that has multiple online mainstream-level news sources. Typically we only delete national winners from very poor black countries because we assume the lack of online coverage means we can't show notability (not that I agree with that).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added three more cites from El Mundo, an El Salvador newspaper. Though I can muddle through Spanish well enough, I'm not going to spend all day adding 25-50 more cites to articles about her.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- being a Miss Universe contestant does not confer automatic notability. Have her name on the pageant's page, her own article does not appear warranted without significant coverage of her as an individual. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved her article greatly with information and citations. With the current sourcing, the article now easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She is extremely popular in El Salvador, and her activities are reported on regularly. She was covered extensively in the media for winning Miss Universe El Salvador 2017, then received significant coverage about her activities leading up to Miss Universe, including her choice to get plastic surgery (which recieved both media criticism and support). She again received significant coverage from the Miss Universe pageant because she kept tripping on her costume and couldn't finish the catwalk. There was lots of discussion about that, and how her fans still support her. She passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." There is no bigger pageant award in El Salvador than Miss Universe El Salvador. She passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (performed in Miss Universe El Salvador and Miss Universe, as well as on various television segments in her country) and "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" (she's extremely popular in El Salvador) Lonehexagon (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has received what I think amounts to SIGCOV. Vast majority of the coverage is in Spanish, but it is not a requirement for the coverage to be English-language. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I would still argue that the subject is not notable, despite article improvements. The copy is largely trivia, as in:

"She received both criticism and support for using cosmetic surgery, including breast enhancement,[10] to improve her appearance in preparation for the Miss Universe pageant.[11][12] Abarca says she is not ashamed.[13][14]"

Keeping such articles would only encourage spammers / socks to produce more of BLPs on marginally-notable individuals. I believe that WP:DENY should carry substantial weight here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that those types of facts are trivia. As a beauty contestant her appearance and personality are what people are most interested in. The fact she's received so much coverage about those types of things is indicative of public interest. The purpose of Wikipedia and the WP:GNG guidelines is to document subjects people find notable (as indicated by significant coverage in secondary sources). It's not our job to put value judgements on what we personally think is notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constructium

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

Not notable. Could add a link to the download page on Klingon alphabets, as the font supports Piqad. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 20:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. It is just a font, the refs don't support notability, they support its existence. Could possibly be a merge if someone knows where. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 4 April 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) talk to !dave 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loreen Hall

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

Request by the article subject at ticket:2018040210005718.

She writes:

Withdrawing my request for deletionBerture77 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After Much Thought I would now like to:

Close this discussion
Cancel my delete article request
And Work on expanding the article, with information that can be sourced.
Can anyone advise me on how to carry out the first two bullet points?Berture77 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk to !dave 20:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#What_if_someone_wants_their_article_deleted? Adam9007 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Dave, is it confirmed that the requester actually is Loreen Hall? The same request has been made here on Wikipedia, and there is discussion about it as Adam linked above, but we have had no confirmation of the identity of the user making the request. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, that's a good question. Joe jobbers unfortunately do exist, but I won't be able to fulfil that request on the OTRS side right now because I am off to bed. I do apologise. (Britishness confirmed there -- apologising for needing to go to sleep?) I'll sort it out tomorrow. talk to !dave 20:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question FIND AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT of my British Athletic career HERE I assume "HERE" is the BBC interview? Adam9007 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would assume this was the link she gave. I'm not going to comment further here until after the other discussion gets a little further along. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, on that self-hosted link she specifically describes herself as a public figure, directly contradicting the statement above. This raises questions about the veracity of the request. The subject also runs what appears to be quite a successful business in NaturalNotts so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of this request actually coming from someone (e.g. business rival) looking to denigrate the subject's online presence. SFB 00:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sillyfolkboy: I received an email from the account -- it has a different email address to the one that is sending us emails on OTRS. Rather suspect, not?? talk to !dave 07:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, that is not as suspect as it seems. talk to !dave 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: I agree it is not necessarily suspicious - it's not unusual for a person to give one email address for their Wikipedia account and use another one for their general, personal email. But the question is, is there evidence that the emails received at OTRS came from the real Loreen Hall? To me that makes all the difference in how seriously to take this request. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Participation does not confer automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hall passes the notability guidelines. This request is not particularly convincing. Improper use of all caps? Check. Over-the-top claim that the article is full of lies? Check. False claim that a reliable website (Sports-Reference.com) is not reliable? Check. Ploy for sympathy with sad story about health and stress? Check. Maybe I'm wrong and this request really is from Loreen Hall, but in that case she's going to have to do better if she wants to convince us. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm struggling to find anything in the biography that could be construed as defamatory, intrusive or insulting to the subject, but there is absolutely nothing of that sort there. It's just a bare, factual account of her performances at athletics tournaments. Personally, I would take pride if I had achieved any one of the feats mentioned. The sources used are among the most reputable you could find – GBR Athletics, owned by Athletics Weekly (the foremost British publication on the sport), and Power of 10, which is the official statistical provider for British athletics. I would strongly oppose deletion on privacy grounds – Hall is a public figure as an Olympian and, by the above admission, recently spoke to the BBC to give an overview of her career. I see no reason to change our coverage here. SFB 00:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from competing at the Olympics, there is other coverage of her, that has been added to the article, and correctly sourced. There's nothing (that I can see) that is untrue, or would warrant removal from a BLP point of view. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NOLY; an individual is deemed notable for inclusion (rightly or wrongly) if they participated in a late nineteenth-century Summer Olympics, let alone one from "only" thirty years ago. No particular opinion on the veracity or otherwise of the takedown request; but note that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is pretty specifically confined to poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, only. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as has been said, she clearly passes notability guidelines as per WP:NOLY. As Serial number points out, the deletion request does not appear to meet WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. And as Lugnuts and Sillyfolkboy correctly point out, the article does not appear salacious, but is simply a factual recitation of her career. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't help but sympathize when someone who asks for BLPREQUESTDELETE, and though I don't see anything defamatory or libelous in the article I can understand privacy concerns, but per WP:NOLYMPICS there's no way the subject is not notable for Wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a subject identified through the OTRS demonstrates information written about them being false we have nothing to justify keeping it. Taking that information out of the equation, we don't have enough remaining to claim sufficient notability.T v x1 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: This is not an accurate description of the situation. The information in the article is not only neutral and verifiable by reputable sources, but it is also supported by the interview provided by the subject. It remains entirely unclear what exact facts the subject disputes, and the sourcing for all the information in the article comes from major publications and statisticians for the sport. SFB 22:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the person sending the emails - and editing here - has not yet been confirmed to be the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments below. There is no justification to be ignorant and to keep a BLP violation.T v x1 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the person who expanded the article, I take issue with the claim that I'm "clearly trying to discredit (her) achievements in British athletics", which is most certainly not the case. The BBC interview mentions an event I was previously unaware of, the Australia Games. If she feels discredited because an event like that is not listed, the only reason for its absence is that although the 1985 Australia Games (which was a one-off multi-sport event) does have a wikipedia article, it has no links to any track results. The closest I've found is an Australian pdf which gives the Australian athletes results (e.g. Nicole Boegman 4th in the 100m), but no info on who won the 100/200/400m. My reasons for expanding the article (as with all athletes pages that I've expanded) is to accurately enhance, not diminish the person's achievements. As pointed out by Sillyfolkboy, you won't get many more reputable sources than GBR Athletics (Athletics Weekly) or Power of 10 (UK Athletics). Some of the info is even backed up by the BBC radio interview, including the info about being British number one in 1987 (52.74), doing the Olympic qualifying time in 1988 (52.71) and her career coming to an end at 20/21, which is the reason the article info does not go beyond 1988. If it is Ms Hall, then it would be helpful to know what facts are in fact disputed. L1975p (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. These are the reasons I applied for the deletion of this article and would still like it deleted:
The article is not a true account of my British Athletic career in that there is too much important data missing, which renders it not accurate as a whole. The missing data is.....> all the gold medals I won throughout my Team GB career, which @L1975p ended 1992.
. On reading the article, before it was changed and even as it stands now, one would not know I won manly gold medals, 2 silvers and 1 bronze.
I'm a 3x Gold Medalist - 1985 Australian Games, 100m, 200m, 400m.
I'm a Gold medalist of The Cosford Indoor Championships, 16th March, 1985 400m (during which I broke the indoor 400m track record twice, once during the heats, then broke my own record in the final.)
I'm a Gold Medalist of the Women's Team GB Women's 4 x 400m Relay Norway 1987
I'm a Silver Medalist of the Women's Team GB 4 x 400m relay at the Gateshead European Games, during which I ran against Flo Jo
I'm a Gold Medalist of the Cyprus Games, 1992 100m
NOTABILITY: Me competing in the games does not make a chronologically incorrect profile on me OK to be kept on Wiki, so much data is missing and there are no new sources that can be added to substantiate what I have outlined above, by way of achievements. @MelanieN said you cannot use the link for my BBC interview because it was uploaded on my Soundcloud account. So there are no other sources that can be used to improve and correctly support the gold and silver medals I won. The article therefore, is incorrect and will remain incorrect if kept. Berture77 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only bronze medal I won was in the 4 x 400m relay at the European cup. The article you wrote @L1975p leads with that bronze medal and gives the impression it's the most major medal I've won?? Where is the mention of all my gold medals?? I'm a Gold Medalist several times over, but the article you wrote does not portray this. Thus, rendering it aninaccurate account of my British Athletic Career. My BBC interview is a legitimate interview with facts that they researched before having me in their studio.

The timeline has too many gaps, which as a whole portrays me as a mediocre athlete who just about made it to the Olympics, which is not true @L1975p. I won the Midlands championships, before the Olympic Trials (oh yeah, there's another gold Medal) and had previously achieved the Olympic qualifying time, 52.71, before I won Silver at the Olympic trials. THIS is what earned me automatic selection for the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games. I earned that spot, thank you very much. (Before and during the Olympics I had a torn hamstring. Anyone that was following British Athletics at that time would know this an The Olympic Board do not select any and anyone.... they took their chances on me because of my track record... they had faith in me to heal from my injury, during the acclimatization period in Japan, before we flew onto Seoul. I competed at the Olympics injured).Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berture77: That certainly reinforces your notability, Wikipedia-wise :) did you send the original email to OTRS? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Olympic athlete = notable. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I need to respond but anyway...

Hall did not finish second at the Olympic trials in 1988. 1st was Linda Keough (51.65) automatic selection, 2nd was Pat Beckford (52.49) automatic selection and third was Janet Smith (52.89) who earned relay selection. Hall earned (notice here and at the article I use the word earned) the third discretionary place thanks to her 52.71 at the midland champs in June '88 (mentioned on the page). If Hall had been top two at the trials (which she wasn't) the Olympic board wouldn't have the option to "(take) their chance on me", as she would have got automatic selection. They "took their chances", because she didn't make the top two at the trials but had ran the standard in June. Hall talks about this in the BBC radio interview.
The article says Hall won a European Junior Championships bronze (not European Cup). The Euro Juniors is a Major Championships, and a medal there is more notable than winning lesser events such as the midland champs, national junior champs or other less notable international events. "Gold medallist several times over", yes, but not at events as notable as the European Junior Championships.
The timeline doesn't have gaps. It says Hall ran (an impressive) 53.08 at 16 (1984) won a major champs medal at 17 (1985), finished second at the 1987 AAA champs (not in Olympic year), was British number one at 19 (1987) and went to the Olympics at 20 (1988). On the BBC Nottingham radio interview, Hall talks about her track career ending when she was 21 (1989). Where's the gaps?
I removed the "failed to reach the final" after a comment by MelanieN, but it was in reference to the '88 Olympic trials/AAA, where Keough & Beckford got automatic selection and Hall was not in the final, due I imagine, to her struggling with the stress fracture that she talks about on the BBC radio interview. The top three at the 1987 AAAs (with Hall) and the 1988 AAA/Olympics trials (without Hall) are both referenced on the article. L1975p (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loreen's response to L1795p last comments Berture77 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @L1795p[reply]
You mention me winning a Bronze Medal at the European Juniors, but fail to mention I won a Silver Medal at the Women's AAA, despite listing that event in your article. So how then, does it not read Loreen won Silver Medal at the 1987 AAA Championships?? It's a silver medal that you're describing in the article as 2nd place.
Another part of the article reads: At the Seoul Olympics, she ran 53.13 in her heat to qualify for the quarterfinals, where she was eliminated once again reporting my athletic career from a negative angle. Why didn't you write: At the Seoul Olympics she achieved Quarter Finalist status, with a time of... This is my life and my reputation you're playing around with. That's two Gold medals you've failed to mention, despite mentioning the events in the article. If you're gonna say an athlete won a race... say what they won.
In this discussion, you're contradicting yourself, you're saying the gold and silver medals I won for Team GB, are not notable enough to be included, but you actually mention one of my least notable races in your article: Hall ran 53.08 secs for 400 metres as a 16-year-old at a Junior international in July 1984 That Junior International you speak of is one of the so callednon notable races you refer to and once again, you failed to call it what it was.... I won a gold medal in that Team GB meeting... it wasn't a club match??
The BBC interview could not cover everything, due to time constraints and only highlighted my major achievements. After retiring I moved to London and got back into athletics. I then competed in the Cyprus Games, which was televised and I won gold medal in the 100m 1992....
The Cosford Indoor Games is a major televised British meeting.... where is the mention of me winning Gold there and breaking the 400m track record. twice??Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Meeting at Gateshead was a major British Televised Meeting, Flo Jo did not compete in low key races... Where is the mention of me winning a silver Medal at that meeting in the 4 x 400m relay?
The Junior Australian Games was also televised, I won 3 Golds there, which is not mentioned in the article
So far that's 6 gold medals and 2 silver Medals for Team GB Events missing from the article.
The bronze medal at the European Juniors was NOT the most notable medal I won, which is what your article suggests. Berture77 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in charge of anything on wikipedia. All articles on wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and I referred to you by your surname out of respect (using someone's first name can be interpreted as being over familiar). I've never said something was "not notable enough" but simply described things as being less notable than the European Junior Championships. All articles on wikipedia have to go by reliable sources. As soon as a reliable source is found on the Australia Games & other events, that info can added (I've looked but have been unsuccessful).

My edits on your page were entirely in good faith, and I've never set out to portray anyone as mediocre, if that was my intention why would I have bothered expanding a stub article on you, mentioning you were a medallist at a major championships, a national champion, and a former British number one, but by the reaction, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. The Flo-Jo meet was televised but was not a major championships (and she did compete at some relatively minor meets, most athletes do in preparation for major champs).

I've been on wikipedia for seven years and have created or expanded many articles on British athletes of the 1980s & 1990s (mostly female), including Georgina Oladapo, Maxine Newman, Julia Bennett, Lorraine Baker, Paula Dunn, Joanne Mulliner, Jacqui Parker, Wendy Jeal, Jill Hunter, Sharon Colyear, Gowry Retchakan etc.... the list goes on and on. You were in no means a special case.

With respect, It hasn't been confirmed to me that you are Loreen Hall, and I notice you did not argue about me saying you were not second at the 1988 Olympic trials (I said Pat Beckford was). So am I correct on that? L1975p (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My response to L1795p That was obviously an error... I was referring to winning a Silver Medal in the AAA championships you wrote in your article as 2nd place. (there is no need for me to make up winning races, I won a fare share of Gold and Silver Medals for Great Britain... Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly, by saying "you were not a special case", I was pointing out that in no way was I singling out the Loreen Hall page for attention (as I hope the list of athletes I mentioned showed). I don't know any of the athletes who's pages I have edited. With the greatest of respect, you were quite explicit in a previous post that you got automatic selection in 1988 (sorry but it wasn't an obvious error to me). You said you "won silver at the Olympic trials", which again with respect, you didn't. I have created, edited and expanded articles on many athletes (others include Dawn Gandy, Helen Thorpe, Amy Wickus, Tatyana Reshetnikova, Diana Richburg, Janet Bell, Lynne Robinson, Sharon McPeake etc..), for seven years now, as nothing more than a hobby, which up until now was enjoyable. L1975p (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Meets WP:NOLY. Reliably sourced. Not spam, defamatory, or copyvio. Can't see any reason to delete, though I'm not sure what to make of the BLP deletion request. Adam9007 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, I can find hardly any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, which is still a requirement even if WP:NOLY is met. Are the keep votes based on a misinterpretation of WP:NOLY? Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Please assume good faith with your fellow editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loreen Hall :p In fact, when one (i.e., me) !votes on the basis of SNG, tht implies that a WP:BEFORE has already been carried out, and thus GNG has concomitantly been established. I.e., there's no misinterpretation of nothin'. Happy editing! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Would Like To Close The Discussion & Remove My Deletion Request

Can anyone advise me on how I remove my deletion request and close this discussion?
I've had a bit of space to think about things and would now like to work on expanding the article with information that can be sourced by newspapers, athletic weekly magazines, etc to support the several winnings at major meetings.
@L1795p with my input and other wiki members we can get the article to read correctly. I appreciate you removing the word (failed), since I was offended by that , although the article still lacks relevant information, which I can provide, with source.Berture77 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Berture77 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Advice from anyone would be appreciated I know nothing about finding my way around wiki as a subscribed member. Thank youBerture77 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just in the process of posting this advice to your talk page. The bottom line: 1) formally withdraw your request for deletion, which you have now done, and 2) copy the information about changes you would like to see in the article to Talk:Loreen Hall. It can be investigated and responded to there; not here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 5 April 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. Some of the Keep rationales are a little close to WP:ITSNOTABLE, but the better crafted ones mean that there is no way this AfD can end in deletion. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the NRA

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

This is my first AFD but I will take my best shot at it. This is clearly a POV fork meant to shame politicians who have received money from the National Rifle Association. The fact that the article's creator got this message in response to the article's creation and said creator does not even try to deny that's what its purpose was seems to say it all. Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral POV, and unless there's an article out there listing politicians who received money from a gun-control group like Americans for Responsible Solutions to balance things out, I fail to see the neutrality of this article. Werehilly (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is extracted from public records and the topic and list has been covered in RS like CNBC. It's a valid topic and valid list. You are free to start another list if you can find reliable sources for the list that discuss the list topic. Please don't make WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations in an area under Discretionary Sanctions. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are barely any sources used for this article at this moment indicates there will be a lesser amount of sources for a counter-list. So I doubt any list of this kind of nature would be sustainable on its own. Werehilly (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject easily meets WP:LISTN, our primary notability guideline for list articles. On top of that, the information is neutrally presented and of substantial encyclopedic value.- Mr X 🖋 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets WP:LISTN as MrX pointed out. It covers both political parties, Republicans and Democrats -- note that 10 years ago, there would be more politicians from both parties on this list, but for reasons not of my doing, the NRA gravitated to the GOP (but Democrats are included); frankly, I didn't know before I started this list how few Democrats were on it, and I would have made this list regardless of how it broke out in terms of political parties. Frankly, trying to guess about people's motivations in creating any article in Wikipedia is fraught with difficulty, and irrelevant -- let's deal with the list as it is. The nominator's worry that these politicians are being "shamed" is really out of context -- one thinks of shaming in the context of a private person, in which some embarrassing detail is revealed unnecessarily, like exposing a married person's affair when nobody cares. But here we have public officials who are supposed to work in the public's interest, and yes it is highly important for voters to know where our legislators are getting their campaign monies from, particularly when it involves an ongoing topic of importance -- gun violence and gun control. And this topic of NRA contributions to members of Congress is highly notable such as sources here and here and here and here and elsewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But can you explain this message you got, and your response to it? Specifically, did you see the part where the user blatantly says, "We should think about other ways Wikipedia can be used to shame our politicians into better behavior!" Werehilly (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for what other users write on my talk page. And you, trying to guess at motives here, is really a waste of time, and is irrelevant to this whole discussion. For example, you don't know my real motivations for creating the article, do you? Perhaps I'm an avid NRA supporter who is secretly glad that the NRA is supporting these congresspersons. Or, maybe I'm an avid NRA foe? See, you don't know. You might scan my previous contributions, but who knows, maybe I've changed my views since then. You don't know. But that's the whole idea of Wikipedia: our agendas are irrelevant -- so focus on the list itself. Does it side with Democrats or Republicans? No -- it lists every congressperson from both parties who got $$$. Does it side with pro-gun or anti-gun debate? No. It's neutral. It is just a list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should've, at the very least, addressed that last statement in some way to maintain neutrality. People who are extremely gung-ho about gun rights are going to look at that exchange and come to their own conclusions about it. Werehilly (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While other people come her to whitewash gun articles. [4] Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, the inclusion criteria are well-defined, and the information is neutrally presented. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that the NRA has been around for years and years, I think the article length would become unmanageable if we included every individual who fits the description. Lepricavark (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is 'unmanageable' a criterion for deletion? There are no size limits for articles in Wikipedia that I am familiar with.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly as long as it will ever get (other than more cites) since the page is specific to an election that is over. If a similar topic comes up in 2020 we put up another page Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little less concerned now that the scope of the article has been clarified and the article has been renamed. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP. Seems This also seems like wp:Advocacy and possibly wp:rgw. Springee (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating what? The list can be viewed positively by either NRA supporters or NRA detractors. It's neutral. It's just information, and it's up to the reader what it means, good or bad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty POV of Springee - when will you stop advocating against any transparency around the NRA's activities? The NRA itself grades candadites in every election. https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you say it's POV of me. This article is meant to be just a list correct? If that is all you think the list should be why did you restore this material which ties the list together with an anti-gun political movement? [[5]]? That moves this from a factual list to a WP:COATRACK. Springee (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, keep the pro-gun and anti-gun stuff out; it's just a list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's plenty of coverage on the topic of "politicians receiving money from the NRA", so the subject meets WP:LISTN. Sample coverage:

Lawmakers and the NRA money, ABC News
The Congress Members Receiving the Most N.R.A. Funding ... | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/.../thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.htm... | Oct 4, 2017 - Thoughts and prayers and the N.R.A.: Here are the top career recipients of N.R.A. campaign money.
NRA contributions: how much money is spent on lawmakers? | US ... | https://www.theguardian.com/.../florida-school-shooting-focus-shifts-to-nra-gun-lobb... | Feb 15, 2018 - On Wednesday, Bess Kalb, a writer for the late night television show Jimmy Kimmel Live! responded to lawmakers offering prayers by tweeting the amount of contributions they received from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
These Florida lawmakers accepted money from the NRA - CNNPolitics | https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/nra-pvf...florida-politicians/index.html | Feb 21, 2018 - Here's a list of members of Congress from Florida whoreceived contributions from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund in the 2016 election cycle.
NRA Money Helped These Washington Lawmakers In 2016, Data ... | Patch.com-Mar 7, 2018 | The NRA gave Washington politicians more than $73,000 in 2016, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

There's plenty more of where this comes from. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the record - I think this is a silly and trivial list (and maybe a fork of a "list of Republicans in 2016"? (even with the 4 Ds there)) whose creation is possibly tinged with advocacy (after all - we do not have a "List of congresspersons who received campaign money from X in 2016" (replace X with your favorite lobbying org)) - but motivations for creation of articles are often tinged every which way (and typically follow editor interest), and this perhaps illustrates the problem with LISTN. However, this does meet LISTN.Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this list vios WP:NOT: this is a non-encyclopedic cross categorization, and with the name change it is even worse, now a triple cross categorization: Members of Congress, a single organization and a single year. It also relies on a single source, and WP:LISTN requires multiple sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list passes LISTN which says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and there are numerous references discussing NRA contributions to congresspersons as a group such as here and here. About cross-categorization: it is true that WP:NOT (point 6) discourages non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations such as "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" but the idea is to discourage contributors from creating new lists (ie original research) by putting two categories together that are normally not together, such as restaurant type and city. But this list does not do that: nothing new is created since the topic of NRA contributions to congress has an abundance of sources. Further, WP:LISTN says explicitly that There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists, so there is no ruling here.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we disagree on which cross-categorizations are not encyclopedic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable sources saying NRA=>$$$=>congresspersons. And unencyclopedic is a vague wiki-speak term for you don't like it but can't exactly say why.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both sources say NRA=>$$$=>congressional candidates in the 2016 election cycle. And many, many people on the list, are not, and never were, "congresspersons". What I don't like is a low quality, erroneously named list article, that leads me to believe the creator did not know what they were doing. My interest is only the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia, as I am sure yours is too. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a personal attack ("did not know what they were doing"), do you have any credible arguments for deletion? The list was taken directly from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, and includes persons who were congresspersons (former & current as well as candidates who weren't chosen) in the 2016 election cycle.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me why someone who has never served in Congress should appear on any list of "congresspersons" in this encyclopedia? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List includes congresspersons (former & current) and candidates for Congress, in 2016 election year cycle. They all got $$$ directly from the NRA in 2016 -- the common variable. You're free to propose a new name for the list. But what does this have to do with the AfD discussion? Doesn't your comment belong on the talk page instead?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am now a little on the fence because I just realized this overall group is already getting even more media exposure due to the 2018 United States gun violence protests. However, since there are some who share my opinion on deleting this, and since I am still technically of the opinion that this should be deleted, I will keep this discussion and see what else can be brought on the table, before I start considering a withdrawal. Werehilly (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding POV elements to a list that you're proposing to delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the title might be a little off. Replace "congresspersons" with "congressional candidates" solves that problem. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how was that POV? Werehilly (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence added appeared to take a side in the gun debate (ie criticizing congresspersons). Let's leave out the pro-Congress anti-Congress pro-gun anti-gun POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the only reason why anyone would want to keep this article. There's also multiple WP:RS covering such criticism. If the article's sole purpose is to just be a list, then I don't see what would be so notable about NRA donations as opposed to donations politicians receive from other organizations (and I'm not just talking about pro-gun and anti-gun organizations). Werehilly (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there was ever a defacto definition of an attack article this is it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is to be treated as a list not confined to 2016, and Neutral, leaning Weak Delete on a 2016-specific list. Most of the sources I've seen, including most of those linked in this very discussion, concern total funds received from the NRA rather than just a list of 2016. It's the fact of receiving the funds at all that is notable, and which gets a lot of coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relevant and useful page, whatever the motives are for the creator are irrelevant to this discussion as long as wiki policies are not being violated, and fall under the realm of WP:AGF. It is too bad similar lists about politicians accepting money from other lobbying groups dont yet exist; perhaps they should be created as they too are useful.--Calthinus (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin Please note that the nominator has been adding in POV additions to the article while using POV as a reason for deletion. And then re-adding the information again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neutral article, satisfies WP:CLT, discussed in CNN, AJC, CNBC, and that's kinda it. Trout Legacypac for moving the page, now I can't judge whether this is notable or if "just 2016" is notable. wumbolo ^^^ 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to moving it to a better title. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neutrally written and notable. SportingFlyer talk 21:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source for the substance of the data is opensecrets.org (source 11, currently, on the article). The other sources are all window-dressing about violence by people with guns, "top-10 NRA donor recipients," etc. So, is opensecrets.org the new fashionable WP:RS, and is Wikipedia to replicate all its data? Seems unreasonable. Also, WP:UNDUE: why only this page dedicated to 2016?. WP:WEIGHT reads: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail". I say the depth of detail points to POV-pushing, raising WP:NPOV issues. As pointed out on the TP, opensecrets.org offers the same data for 2014, 2012, 2010, etc. Insofar as these pages do not exist, it appears to be UNDUE to have this one page. Mind you, insofar as the article is quote-"supported"-unquote by some WP:RS articles, I do think it would be fair for interested editors to build an article such as "NRA political contributions in the early 21st Century", or some such. It's just the deep data replication from opensecrets.org that is highly questionable, UNDUE, and therefore this article should be deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opensecrets is neutral, nonpartisan, their source the Federal Election Commission, a reliable source. The list is built so that future years could be added -- the year is a column. There is no particular POV being pushed -- both pro-gun and anti-gun people could find this list useful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is inherently an NPOV violation. We wouldn't keep a List of congresspersons who received campaign money from George Soros or List of congresspersons who received campaign money from the Koch brothers for obvious reasons, and we shouldn't keep this either. It's also borders on a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the list does not advocate a particular POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The page says The issue of gun control and politics has become a topic of debate following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018, and it's obviously intended to highlight politicians that are anti-gun control. Whether it's supposed to support or oppose them (or both), it's still problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It explains why the issue is important; it doesn't take sides.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a neutral article. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has achieved neutrality and the subject has been often covered by media. Lorstaking (talk) 08:54, 9 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Black Games

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

Finds some mentions in reliable sources, but ultimately fails to find enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV/WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi (✉) 20:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs, google and news showing nothing I can see. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Company has some questionably notable games, but nothing to indicate significant coverage for the creators. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 9 April 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 keep and use this article as a target for redirect of individual games (where appropriate). (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Imagine video games

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

Lacks in-depth coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Also don't see a viable redirect tagret, as List of Ubisoft games already is just a really crowded and way-too-long table. Lordtobi (✉) 19:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'd delete the articles on individual titles in this series first and use any sources listed there to improve this list. It seems like IGN has reviewed a large number of these games. I don't have much trouble finding other sources too: [6]; [7]; [8]. I believe this list can stand on its own and I think it may be best to keep it split from the List of Ubisoft games, which is overly crowded as stated. ~Mable (chat) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Delete the individual entries, however, as they don't meet GNG. There are SO MANY games that I fail to believe there are zero mentions of every single one of them. There are a few decent sources in the article, and mentioned above so a list of all of them is viable. Not individual entries though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon review, I agree that the individual should be deleted/redirected to whatever happens to the main article. Also thank you Maplestrip for your expansion of the article; if sufficient in-depth coverage is found for the main series article, I'd be fine with withdrawing the nom. Regarding this latter part, I will check back later today, when I find the time. Lordtobi (✉) 09:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veruca James

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

Not notable. We have clear and strict notability requirements for porn performers, with three specific criteria; this person does not meet any of the three. Note: this is an area of Wikipedia that I have no interest in and have managed to avoid until now – so please excuse any mistake or misunderstanding, and forgive me for having skipped WP:BEFORE on this particular occasion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable porn actress. Makro (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:PORNSTAR, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. There's more coverage of her online (pun intended) but it's brief mentions (another pun) so I don't see general notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I presume L.A. Weekly is the only one valid reference.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Chris troutman. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first item in WP:PORNBIO is awards and the article links to a source (not necessarily an WP:RS) that notes a bunch of awards. Do any of these count toward item 1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: No, and the reason is that none of those awards which this person actually won are well-known and significant. Many of them are also for scenes, which don't apply. The AVNs are important, but this person never actually won any of them (just was nominated). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Compassionate727 response.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of both the GNG and the guidelines for performers in pornographic productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete handwaves towards notability does not actually equal evidence of reliable sourcing to meet GNG or even the discredited and overly generous PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Clearly, Boobpedia.com is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 7 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy, free expression, and transparency

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

WP:NOT#ESSAY. This is an unexplained synthesis of three separate topics which have their own articles, any content from here should go there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability that this is a stand-alone topic. While it contains some useful information, that would be better used as cites in specific topic pages. This essay is a rehash of its Creative Commons source, a UNESCO document, by User:Saraah GM, a UNESCO employee. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gee fizz. I really hope that most of this is just copied outright from the UNESCO source, and someone didn't actually put that much original work into the article. No prejudice if someone wants to merge pieces of this into other articles, or even IAR WP:U5 for a while and userfy to give them time to work on it, but this is an essay, and not an encyclopedia article. We do have two articles entitled Truth, Justice, and the American Way, but there's a reason they're comic books, and not an essay that arbitrarily combines the topics of truth, justice, and the American way. GMG ^talk 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never seen such a large, comprehensible, article that fails to satisfy. However as already noted, as well as essay-like aspects (very evident in the intro paragraph), it doesn't appear to provide information not in the constituent articles. For it to stand it needs to be primarily about how exactly these fields interact. As it is, it is both duplicative and fails NPOV. There must be areas that would enhance the constituent articles, but obviously not suited to an actual merge(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:22, 6 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Micheletti

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

The author, user:Mad Nick, is a well known pov-pusher and spammer in the Italian Wikipedia. Indeed, under that nick(name), there is the very Nicolas Micheletti. No reliable sources about him on the web. No such thing as "candidate for the city of Pisa": the ref talks about San Giuliano Terme (31.220 inhabitants) and he was not even the candidate major. His party took 2.293 votes (13.46%). According to the Italian standards this should be an easy speedy deletion. Since I'm not sure about the English standards here I am. Ripepette (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is a valid notability claim that would get him over WP:NPOL or our notability standards for activists, the sourcing is spazzatura, and our conflict of interest rules prevent the subject from starting his own article about himself. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 21:52, 7 April 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. Hut 8.5 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Lynx

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

Not notable. We have clear and strict notability requirements for porn performers, with three specific criteria; this person does not meet any of the three. She has an award, but it is for a group scene and group scenes are specifically excluded by our criterion. Note: this is an area of Wikipedia that I have no interest in and have managed to avoid until now – so please excuse any mistake or misunderstanding, and forgive me for having skipped WP:BEFORE on this particular occasion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veruca James. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails ANYBIO and PORNSTAR. The sources cited (which include any I found) don't seem to connote GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable porn actress.Makro (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail in WP:PORNBIO? Yes. Fail in WP:GNG? Perhaps. But all sources cite the fact about she leaves her corporate Job to Be a Porn Star. This is WP:BLP1E.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Handwaves to being notable are wothless without sources to back them up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC
Delete Fails the overly lenient WP:PORNBIO guideline. Writing a self-promotional autobiographical article does not make a person notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:PORNBIO. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:11, 9 April 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. Alex Shih (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Arnold

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

It is NOT notable and it is in complete disaster, only 2 sources exist for this type of article. Hardly anyone can rescue it. Newroderick895 17:58, 2 April 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. Obvious spam, self-written vanity page. Totally unsourced, and, despite, the comment I'm not convince that he meets the notability guidelines for porn actors, but A7 not needed anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Hudson

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

A vanity article on an adult film performer. No sourcing to back up his claims of notability, as per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also is an autobiography, appears primarily intended as self-promotion. Does not qualify for A7 though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 April 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birb (Term)

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

None of the "sources" cited in this article (KYM, Youtube, Urban Dictionary) are reliable, thus this fails WP:WEB. We don't need an article for every single meme anyway. ★Gooseflesh12★ (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With a chance of snow. Non notable meme. Birb redirects to bird already, but I find it doubtful that the parenthetical title is a particularly plausible redirect. GMG ^talk 17:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was looking for the way to speedy it seeing that it was largely based on complety unreliable sources and nothing dependable can be found in search. Also not redirect worthy; because redirect with parenthetical qualifier is meaningless. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: - it would be a case of creative accounting, but maybe CSD as a recently created page that duplicates Birb. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a little too creative, but that doesn't mean any passing janitor can't snow close this as delete. GMG ^talk 18:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even 'doggo' has its own page. --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the other editors who weighed in. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unreferenced and not reliably verifiable. Might be reliably very fryable, but that's not quite the same thing. If so, fry and serve in BBQ sauce with fries. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per nom. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk · contribs) 19:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Vinzelts

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

Still not sufficiently notable to meet WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on original nom. (Not sure why it was kept after that) - ^theWOLFchild 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't kept after that, it got recreated as a new article three days ago. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is a stronger notability claim than the first go-around, and none of the referencing represents reliable sourcing that would get him over WP:GNG. I'm especially mystified by the citation to Google Maps, because having your business or foundation listed on Google Maps is not a claim of notability in and of itself: Google Maps data is user-generated, can be submitted by absolutely anybody including John Vinzelts himself, and can be wrong — and at any rate, the link being given as a reference took me to the Plateau-Mile End neighbourhood in Montreal, not to anything in Ghana, so I've had to strip it. Nothing here — especially not Fairmount Bagel on rue Saint-Urbain in Montreal, but not anything else here either — is credible or properly sourced evidence of the subject's notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

After reading http://www.un.org/en/ethics/pdf/putting_ethics_to_work_en.pdf on how the Code of conducts and Ethics work within the UN system, I have realized that, UN Officials are Non-Partisan Politicians whose works credits and awards are not honored to themselves but to the United Nations organization instead. Examining my broad research and studies on John Vinzelts, I best understood why upon all his mega events and extensive works, activities and projects in Ghana, no recognition by the media has been credited to him on the internet to provide more compelling and evidential links to support article notability on Wikipedia, which must have been a result of lack of Media during his Events and campaigns, nevertheless, that doesn’t mean he is not Notable for a historic Article on Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement and promotion but imperatively an educational centered portal for documentation of facts and Historical details. We must accept the fact that, the subject is an emerging Figure and a Leading Young Leader who is highly climbing among the millions of Youth Leaders in Africa, especially in his country Ghana, thus, educational studies of his history cannot be ignored since Article about him could be improved and expanded as days go by and in the future, in as much as his tremendous works and impact are still speaking and transforming many young generation in Africa.

I have also read so much information from several United Nations Pages on Facebook and other social media and I understood then forth that, he is not just the country head of UN Youth Ghana, but the Founder, and also a Founding figure of the same organizations in several countries in Africa, also on another position in the Seychelles country as an Advisory Board member. In fact deleting this article will only do no good, lest for educational studies purposes and for historic references. With humility and respect for the the Wikipedia community, please Let’s consider some factual consideration of vital points to hold on on the deletion target until further provisions and additional press sources and media links are added to the articles, now and in the future days, since the works and activities of the subject is still calling for an Article. As I revised the previous deletion debates that had happened in some years back on the Subject's first Article that was similarly written, I have realized that, the writer might have heard of his historical presence got it educationally and historically interested and had more popular informations on his works, but unfortunately could not found any concrete or supportive press sources to support his Article, for that matter, the first Article was deleted.

On trying to know why the same Article I have found notable is facing the same notability problems, I have come out with another interesting found-outs that, the UN Officials respect the ethics and code of conducts enough regarding to where conflict of interest occurs on their private popularity interests interfere—or appear to interfere—with the interests of the UN.

The officials base their focus, attentions and decisions solely towards the UN Works on the importance of UN’s needs, projects, activities, and humanitarian works focused, focusing their attention on selfless projects execution that avoid self appraisals interest that calls for personal compliments, and work delivery rather than intentionally seeking the media houses and Paparazies to cover stories about them during their events and being publish to get Fame and popularity on the internet for references that may benefits trusted source link for Wikipedia. The Subject is known to be a UN Youth Representative for his Country as a Top-Official who we know, will factually deal samely with third parties in ways that avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his popularity interest and those of the UN. These UN Diplomats unlike other Politicians,always expected to prevent Fame so that they can provide their loyalty to the United Nations organization instead of themselves.

As my first Article and as a writer for in this Wikipedia community, I have come far days and months conducting extensive research on this same subject who was once deleted as a work that could have been improved upon. I have all this times follow Guidelines and every necessary Wikipedia's requirements, for this work. This article could be saved for further improvement and expansion but not to be deleted. I strongly believe that somedays this same Article shall be re- written again by another writer who may found the same subject notable just as many of us have wasted all our efforts today to save, considering it as educational and historical stand out article. The question may not only be on how many times should this article be re-written and be deleted? should it continuously be Thousand times or million times wasting millions of Writers times until it’s finally accepted, instead of been saved one time and invites more hands of writers to improve it for further expansions. Thank You (Strongbolt66 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not established by what an article says — it's established by how much reliable source coverage in media the person received for doing what the article says they did. A person can get into Wikipedia for winning a tiddlywinks competition, if they got enough media coverage to clear GNG for it, and a person can claim to be the king of the entire world and not get a Wikipedia article if the media didn't take him seriously. It's the amount of media coverage they got, not what the article says, that determines whether a person is notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Subject John Vinzelts though not having enough media coverage on the internet, is a well defined and a known Figure in the Ghanaian society, and I have personally provided few authentic and reliable sources that is a bit enough to be considered reliable sources, helping to keep improving this article until other media coverages sources are added in the future since he is still making mega progress in promoting Charity Works, Youth activism Projects and Peace advocacy campaign now and in the future. So my ultimate reasoning and concerns here is, I don't really care if you decide to delete this Article that i think could be improve upon, but did i understand from your point that Wikipedia may allow multiple and dozens media coverage and online publications even if fake news but once it's found online or on third party sites online based it is known as reliable sources?, or you don't really care if people paying Media houses to cover untrue stories about people, but will be much acceptable and appreciated than genuine Article on historic people whom future generations and students deserve to read about? are we really encouraging the right thing here to be done? well i arrest my case here, feel free and delete this Article if you think that is the proper way of verifying Article Sources, Even for UN Figures whose facts are needed to be kept as educational documentation for study purposes. Thanks anyway for educating me on more information here about Wikipedia reliable sources.(Strongbolt66 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

In my humble opinion however, if we keep ignoring and deleting even genuine articles, what is going to happen is that, you next see people paying off for media coverage without getting nothing done in the society if that is what we want to encourage to be historically recorded in articles. I stand to be corrected as you forgive my immature thoughts on this, or lest i sound offensive to the Wikipedia community, i'm just curious to understand and encourage the works of United Nations and Its people who sacrifice their lives for humanity, unlike many famous people who are only making noise for their names to be recognized in the society and indeed as i begin to think of already. I really want us to re-consider the fact on things to be done in a generous perspective with my humility to accept your contributions and suggestions in anyway or level you take this debate to, within your own judgement, faith and conviction. Thanks so much ( Strongbolt66 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Procedural note I've blocked Strongbolt66 as a sock of DANIEL OBUOBI. A review of this SPI archive leaves little doubt. The article could feasibly be speedied.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG for stand alone independent article and may need salt added given the article was "recreated as a new article three days ago". Kierzek (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per arguments Lyndaship (talk) 10:45, 7 April 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 Deleted while this AfD was just getting started. Oh well. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Vos

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

Spam article created by a now-blocked account that carried the same name as this individual's company. No sourcing provided, and a Google search is not pulling up any significant sourcing to justify WP:BIO status. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above and corroborated by my own good-faith search, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Note that the article subject does not gain notability through work he has done for notable individuals per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see the sourcing out there to support an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the article, let alone the sourcing. Looks like someone already axed. it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rassias'_conjecture

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

This conjecture is simply a special case of the well known Dickson's conjecture. It does not appear to be in any way a notable conjecture with a tradition of study in its own right. The passing reference to it in the preface of a book by M. Th. Rassias seems to form part of a personal-interest story, concerning someone who does not appear to be sufficiently notable for such a story to in itself justify inclusion in wikipedia! There also seems to be a history of self-promotion related to this mathematician. Mathchecker (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability from sources outside academic works not shown. If kept should be moved to comply with MOS:POSS. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The available sources do not discuss the conjecture in depth [9]. One of them actually lists it under "Congetture di Dickson e Rassias" [10], which doesn't give much support to the idea that the special case deserves its own article. The part about Cunningham chains is close enough to [11] to count as a copyright violation. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 2 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John McDonald (author)

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

Promotional article. Not finding anything in the article or online to suggest that he can pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is completely unreferenced, but for a linkfarm of primary sources, YouTube videos and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, exactly none of which count as proper reliable source support for his own standalone notability as a person. Plus there's an obvious advertorial skew here, making it unsurprising that the article has a history of being created and edited by WP:SPAs with no prior or subsequent editing history and usernames suggestive of possible conflicts of interest. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no refs but there are a dozen or so external links which i presume are hoped for references, however they all return 404s, unrelated or links to buy his books. So this is an advert in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO for a nonnotable marketing guru.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 8 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ousepachan Vaalakuzhy

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

This article about an Indian producer was declined at AfD [12] due to insufficient sourcing to demonstrate subject notability. Regardless, author moved it into mainspace twice [13][14] without adding the necessary sources. As of now, everything provided is incidental or primary. My searches don't show up any ready remedies. As the author is clearly not interested in and/or capable of establishing notability, I suggest this be deleted. Further draftifying is unlikely to be successful, given past actions. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One ref which is unsearchable and has been declined at afc on 5 occasions according to my reading. Szzuk (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Marie Coins

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

Scant to nonexistent coverage outside inhouse sources; appears to fail the various notability criterai for businesspeople, writers, actors, artists, OR GNG. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of indepdent, reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 4 April 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) 00:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qorikuxaar

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

Somali "town" which doesn't exist. The one source cited says it's actually a valley and not a populated place. No trace of settlement on satellite imagery and no sources to satisfy WP:NGEO (unless you count a couple of forum posts about what a weird name it is). Hut 8.5 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-existent town. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Hut 8.5 is right that this seems to be a valley rather than a town, which is a quick fix in the present wikitext. We should really be !voting on the notability of the valley, as that can at least meet WP:V based on the cited source alone. But WP:NGEO states that for a geographic feature can be considered notable only if "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist," which isn't true in this case. However, if anyone can locate any sources on the valley, the article should be kept - regardless of whether the town exists or not. MarginalCost (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to point out that Cebuano Wikipedia seems (to someone who had never knowingly met the language before) to have a better (and more accurate) article on this topic than we do here - written by a bot. The sources given are all English-language ones, which I think I would trust for verifiability if notability was otherwise established. However, what I can't tell for certain is whether the Cebuano article gives anything beyond statistical-level data - if it does, then WP:NGEO would be established, but I suspect that it does not. PWilkinson (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that all the bot has done is used the geographical coordinates of the subject to look up climate data for it and added that to the article. I can't see anything there which goes beyond statistical data and location. That article also says that it's a valley and not a town, according to Google Translate. WP:NGEO is very generous to populated places but in the case of a valley we need sources that give a significant information of verifiable information about it. Hut 8.5 22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm extending the conversation in order to give time to weigh the notability of the valley. If no further discussion ensues I encourage the next reviewer to close as "delete" without further extension.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is one sentence and one picture, basically. And no sources. That can never prove notability by itself. This article should be deleted, but if there is any hope for the English Wikipedia viability of the article's subject matter, then maybe it should be moved to a draft space. I find it noteworthy that PWilkinson pointed out the Cebuano counterpart of this article, because that is a better example for an article than this English one. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globglogabgalab

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

Non-notable character in someone's YouTube video. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The character has been memed and discussed for that reason in various blogs written by people who follow memes. Little or no coverage that is significant in reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. It's discussed on knowyourmeme and meme.wikia.com so I'm hopeful the fans migrate away from here to there. It must be our goal to restrain the fans. Shame on Jimbo et al for this "anyone can edit' nonsense. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete funny meme. but thats all it is. a meme.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 03:05, 10 April 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. still spam, still no evidence of notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thameens films

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

This article was recreated a third time after being deleted for A7. No indication of importance, G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion and G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement Enough is enough. The subject does not meet the notability criteria of WP:NCORP and no amount of re-creating the article can fix the problem that is has not received in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:37, 2 April 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 consensus to delete is emerging. Furthermore, the article creator is clearly a sock of Melissaburner. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donnabella Mortel

AfDs for this article:

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

UPE from now blocked social media company named account. Latest attempt to use Wikipdea as a means of promotion. Non notable actress. Promotional piece for individual lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. Current sourcing is a bombardment of bad sources. A mix of primary, PR releases, passing mentions, non mentions and tacky tabloid titillation. Article claims she is a lead in Freshwater and Born Bad but that's just lies. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. WP:NOTLINKEDIN WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination says it well. This article uses lots of "dirty tricks" to try to make the subject appear to meet notability criteria, such as over-referencing with poor quality sources and exaggerated claims ("lead role" doesn't appear to be true in most cases). This article is the typical result of paid editing. Peacock (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 may apply because the article creator is a fairly obvious (though never confirmed by checkuser) sock from this sock farm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Melissaburner. Peacock (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Cinema Releasing

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

Delete It is not notable and is unreferenced. It only produced a few films from 1975. It became defunct in 1983. No other films were there. It does mention the founders of the company, but it never talks about them. Evil Idiot (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs and the article is just a few sentences. Szzuk (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what Nom means by "no other films were there" , IMDb has a list. Company's defunct, so it's not PROMO. Maybe roll it over and give someone a chance to try and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
probably keeep; Defunct company with quite a few hits in books. Let us not allow our endemic presentism, or the fact that companies that died a decade or more ago don't come to the top of a quick search, to blind us to the fact that even a defunct company can be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced failed company. Odds of passing the new WP:NCORP are exceptionally low, and since no sourcing has been presented, we should go ahead and delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI did a little sourcing. Note also the number of incoming links, to me, incoming links indicate that editors find an article useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as expected, it appears to fail NCORP. The NYT does mention a parent company as well, American Communications Industries, which as we can see, is a red link. It appears to be extant, but not notable. If it was, it might serve as a useful redirect target. I can't see the book or the Globe and Mail source, but based on the referencing in the article, it appears quite trivial. I can see the NYT piece, and it certainly doesn't meet NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 11 April 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Shah

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORS.

Steps were taken to locate the coverage in RS before this nomination, but were not successful, thus this bio fails verification. Notifying @Narky Blert: who has made some edits to the page and may have something valueable to comment. Saqib (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my {{proposed deletion endorsed}} rationale I wrote, "I looked at all the bluelinks to films, and turned all but two of them red. There are 12 films in his IMDb profile (which I found and added as a non-WP:RS EL). Only 4 of them are listed here. He is not said to have starred in any of those 12 films. Fails WP:NACTOR". I stand by that. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. He was features in couple of movies. Died early in his career in 1990s, so do not expect large number of coverage. Large number of articles written on him. I found [15], [16], [17], [18]. These references prove that he was an actor who worked and was notable in his time. How popular was he or notable he was, we can discuss, but that person existed, worked in movies and a known personality. Proof is in articles. This article should stay as stub. It also require some cleaning. I can do it, once deletion tag is removed.--Spasage (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources provided above to establish the notability of the subject are not even reliable, and cannot be cited on pages, let alone in AfDs where the standard set for sources to support claims is much higher. --Saqib (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is not reliable. --Spasage (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said all. All four. Saqib (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom and Narky.Comprehensively fails NACTOR.No significant role in any prominent film.Most of the films, listed at the non-reliable sites, brought by Spassage, won't qualify for an independent article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable but weak references, needs improvement. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 18:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 14:59, 7 April 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 Dhupguri#Education. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dakshin Khayer Bari High School (X)

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

A non-notable high school with zero coverage in reliable sources. This could have been an A1 or A7, but schools aren't usually eligible for CSD, so AfD it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Dakshin Khayer Bari High School" as Draft, redirect to Dhupguri#Education where the article was spun off. No sources presented. X is not a proper disambiguator. It was mainly so that it indicates it starts at the equivalent of 10th grade, or perhaps that it is a regular X school and not a 10+2? Hard to tell. But it's not part of the school's name. So (X) should be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice: WP:NSCHOOL which says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For profit educational organizations and institutions are considered Commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)" WP:ORGCRIT: "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Only source presented: Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation: Significant coverage: No (just a listing of the school), Independent: Yes (government), Reliable: Yes (government), Secondary: Yes (government), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count toward ORGCRIT). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs renaming but here's an Indian government source verifying the "sr. secondary" school's existence and location (entry 64). Again (1, 2), took me a matter of minutes to find. Please all, let's heed WP:BEFORE. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has the same problem as the other nom. The source is but an entry in the government list, so that's a reason to redirect it to the related list. It is not significant coverage of the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Okay, there is proof that the school actually exists. But conform the RFC on Schooloutcomes that is not enough any more. There must be proof that the school is notable. The Banner talk 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The source indicated by Innisfree987 shows it's a verified secondary school. Having to flesh out he notability of every secondary school in the world is a bad path for WP to go down.--Oakshade (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – The fact that it can be shown to exist doesn't make it notable in and of itself, it needs significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources. That is blatantly not the case.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 05:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhupguri#Education.Exists but no coverage in sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and redirect, per AngusWOOF's argument. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 16 April 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. Whether to create a redirect is an editorial decision.

We still do not agree whether certain types of school should be considered inherently notable, and that discussion has been going in circles for a long time. But this AfD is particular in that the "delete" side contends that there are no third-party reliable sources to make the content of this article even verifiable. Prima facie, that seems to be true, given that all references in the article are to the school's own website. One could argue that this website is an acceptable primary source, but that argument is not made here, and in any case the idea of sourcing an article exclusively to the subject itself is anathema to the concept and practice of verifiability as we understand it.

The "keep" arguments all assert notability based on this being a college, but they do not address the sourcing concerns or offer new sources. Because of the fundamental importance of WP:V as a core policy, which cannot be superseded by local consensus, the "keep" opinions have to be disregarded. Sandstein 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola College, Vettavalam

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

Seems to fail the notability guidelines. No independent sourcing for the details. Looks like promo. The Banner talk 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, tertiary education institutions are usually notable, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, lack of independent sources in the article (at the moment?) are a concern but may be a case of article improvement not deletion? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Schooloutcomes does not state that with so many words... The Banner talk 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Schooloutcomes discusses the probable outcome of a deletion discussion for a school; any attempt to use it in such a discussion is inherently circular. For that reason it is among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but i like circular reasoning, therfore i like circular reasoning Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thiruvalluvar University unless multiple, substantial, in-depth independent reliable sourcing can be provided – at the moment it's sourced entirely to its own website, so there's no indication whatsoever of notability. It's possible that there may be sources in languages other than English; but in English, there are no hits on GoogleNews and no relevant hits on GBooks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to find a "local" name, but not even the school website provides such a name. The Banner talk 23:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RfC on schools concluded there was no basis to change the practice of always keeping articles on high schools. Every reason for that applies all the more to colleges. A reason for deletion might be lack of independence, but I see no evidence that its affiliation to Thiruvalluvar is other than the customary Infian way of getting the degrees authenticated. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Creative interpretation of the RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC is NOT stating your interpretation clearly. But it is stated clearly that school are not notable just because they exist. Their notability must be proven... The Banner talk 06:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree that sources beyond "existence" is required, which is why mine above was a "comment", btw doesnt point 2 talk of tertiary ie. degree issuing (Loyalla is apparently ug and pg), institutions are notable, but do require independent sources? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, am i being circular again?:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thiruvalluvar University. No WP:RS to be found, at least in English or in Google translation. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College,_Vettavalam[reply]
Delete not fully independent enough to default a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, poke around on their website and it quickly becomes apparent this is a real college - with a really rubbish english language website. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What about indepehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College,_Vettavalamndent sources to prove the notability of this school? The Banner talk 17:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It only offers University degrees, in the UK every one of these would have an article, so I extend that logic to this college. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on what policy? The Banner talk 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per DGG. Furthermore, nom offers no good reasons to go against long-established WP practice of keeping articles on colleges. Colleges are notable, full stop. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The classic circular reasoning to keep something because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past because it was kept in the past. Is there any policy-based argument? The Banner talk 15:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy-based argument is that we keep things for which there is consensus to keep. The fact that they have routinely been kept in the past is evidence for consensus so we don't have to keep rearguing the same points every time someone wakes up and thinks they're going to change everything. See WP:FENCE and start another RfC if you want to change the long-established consensus that colleges are notable and their articles are kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you have no policy-based arguments? The Banner talk 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: secondary school articles are normally kept to prevent overwhelming and inundating AFD with deletion discussions. Which is just what seems to be happening with JZSJ's articles. Based on the rationale that secondary articles are kept as a matter of convention, we should obviously keep university articles. Per WP:PRESERVE, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:IFITAINTBROKE, WP:IAR. – Lionel^(talk) 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you prefer to keep non-notable institution based on a dodgy circular reasoning but without a policy-based background? The Banner talk 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for keep based on previous practice is not circular reasoning. One of the virtues of an encyclopedia is consistency. We deal with that by maintaining the status quo unless there is consensus to do otherwise. If necessary, we establish that consensus by an RfC. The most recent RfC said there was no consenus to change the practice of always keep secondary school articles. It didn't explicitly discuss universities, but whatever reasons apply to keeping high school articles, would apply all the more to universities.

True, the RfC also said there was no consensus that just referring to the original statement is commonoutcomes was not sufficient. I'm not referrring to common outcomes, but to the RfC, wich is he authority for saying there is no accepted change in the prior practice.

Additionally, there is the underlying reason for having this practice, which not that all high schools are notable, but that treating them as if they are is a compromise to avoid the many thousands of AfDs that would otherwise give essentially random results. The present AfD and the small number of subsequent AfDs, which have essentially given the same random decisions unrelated to the actual relative notability of the specific schools, is the best reason to continue the practice. Nobody is served by elaborate discussions that yield random results, neither those who wish to keep or to delete such articles.

And I mention there is another haldf to thecompromise: we do not routinely keep primary schools. If we didn['t continue to observe the compromise, we'd be debating every one of these also. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you starting those discussions when you know that is based on nothing. has there been a wiki-wide vote to determine this or is it just a local consensus among a small WikiProject? Why do you still believe in a consensus when that consensus is so often challenged? The Banner talk 08:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the consensus has gone why don't you start a wiki-wide RfC to clarify the issue instead of making time-wasting nominations like this one? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that RfC...The Banner talk 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability of colleges and universities is described as advice in an essay which is NOT a policy or guideline. Unfortunately, the essay's advice leaves us with a quandary that hinges on two assertions related to our discussion here: the first sentence in the "Notability" section, In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia; and a sentence under "Reliable sources", Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations, and cannot be used to establish a claim of notability. I have spent more time than I care to admit searching for reliable, independent secondary sources for this article, and only found another primary source, the founding organization, the site of a Jesuit mission in Madurai Province. As the sponsoring institution, we have to consider it as another "self-published" source. I could be wrong about that.

The college claims affiliation with Thiruvalluvar University, but that institution does not appear to list affiliation colleges individually, describing them only, "98 arts and Science college are affiliated to this university, of which 10 are government Arts and science colleges, 9 are aided Arts and science colleges, 3 are oriental title colleges, 72 are self financing Arts and Science Colleges and the remaining 4 are University Constituent colleges." Accreditation by India's National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is granted to recognized universities, not separately to "Autonomous colleges/Constituent Colleges/ Affiliated Colleges (affiliated to universities recognised by UGC as an affiliating University", so we are left with a dearth of sources to establish verifiability.

Even though I am personally satisfied that Loyola College, Vettavalam, does exist because I believe that the Jesuit Channai Mission is a credible primary source, the sourcing identified does not establish a claim of notability for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the current WP article on Thiruvalluvar University does not list any affiliated colleges individually, so even a merge with that article does not look very promising. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus as established by the last RfC is that we keep all secondary schools (and that implies upwards also). As for affiliation, almost all Indian colleges have been affiliated with one of the universities that can actually award degrees. It doesn't imply dependency. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very special reading of that RfC. The Banner talk 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure which RfC you're talking about, DGG, but presumably not the one in February 2017 where the main result was "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"? For general reference, and for 192.160.216.52 in particular, here are the results of the RfC, copied straight from WP:Schooloutcomes:

The closure of this February 2017 RFC provided the following RfC nutshell results regarding the above section:

Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.
Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

I'm also having difficulty following your reasoning in your longer post higher up this page. If I read you correctly, you say "... [it's] not that all high schools are notable, but that treating them as if they are ...[avoids thousands of AfDs]". If that were a valid argument, why on earth would we not apply it to biographies? – think of all the AfD discussions that could be avoided! We could choose some arbitrary criterion (being dead, say), and just have a page on everyone who meets it. Or we could use our heads and apply some sensible and stringent criteria for inclusion. We do that for people, and we ought to be doing it for schools too. There are, I imagine, many millions of schools in the world (how many in China alone?); we obviously can't have an article on every one of them, and nor should we try to unless we also have something to say about them. To do that we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, just as we do for all other kinds of article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's selective quoting from the nutshell, not the close. The close also said (in paragraph 3): " SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD" It furthermore said about the proposition "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" answered "Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus." Thus, there is no consensus to reject the statement. Since this would seem somewhat contradictory to other selective quotes fro the closing, the only final result is there is no consensus to change anything in our prior practice. The text in the nutshell is a not actually a representation of the actual close--this is not all that unusual in WP--there are hundreds of such contradictions, which is why to the extent that the purpose of rules is to be a guide, "the actual rules are whatever we do consistently."

With people, experience shows we can come to somewhat rational results. Most fields of biography have standards supplementary to the GNG, which permit such decisions, and there is a rough agreement-- most of the time the more important are kept and the less important are not. (though the people interested in each of the various fields tend to think their field is treated unfairly strictly, within each field the decision make sense. For schools, it depends entirely on who shows up and on how much they care: before the compromise, the results were random having no connecting to any sense. Even if one wanted to try to decide rationally, in a field where sources are scarce, the result depends if you want to argue the qualifying terms in the GNG (substantial, independent, reliable, secondary) to yield a delete or keep result--I learned very soon that in any school afd I could equally do either. I have not analyzed the few recent afds, but the results so far seem equally random. To quote the close once more, "It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special."

the current state of things seems to be that each side is trying to persist longer than the other, which I suppose can be justified by saying the people who care the most will be most persistent. Basically, we need a truce. We had one for many years, until the school deletionists decided to break it. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it may be usefull to have another RFC to see if we can get a clearer consensus. It’s been some time and we have had conversations like this on many school AfDs. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, it would be good enough when people start adhering to the present consensus (see the RfC) that school articles can be removed when the article does not show its notability. The Banner talk 05:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that people aren't "adhering to the present consensus" it may be time to start thinking about whether you misunderstand the present consensus. A consensus is by definition what people adhere to. I've been saying all along that if you all don't like SCHOOLOUTCOMES or its use in AfDs you ought to start an RfC on it rather than trying to pick off individual articles and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of violating some imaginary consensus. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* Did the submitter bother to WP:BEFORE? Egaoblai (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother about WP:AGF? The Banner talk 23:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, I did my research before I nominated.[reply]

What additional reliable sources have you identified, Egaoblai, that you think should have been found by a BEFORE search? I don't see that any have been mentioned here, nor that any have been added to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful

It's not the position of the submitter or the deletionist cheerleaders to force other people to work for them. However, it is the responsibility of the AFD submitter to do thorough checks on notability. IN the case of schools, where previous consensus holds that they are generally found to be notable, the fact that the school can be proven to exist is enough to keep it from deletion, as "school outcomes" shows that in pretty much every case, notability has been shown. Good day.Egaoblai (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm laughing my ass off. Who thought Indian colleges could be so entertaining. Please relist one more time!!! lmfao – Lionel^(talk) 00:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll post a couple of JZSJ's school articles to ADF, but only if Banner promises to participate.– Lionel^(talk) 00:35, 12 April 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. Editors can't agree and there is no appetite for further discussion. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syneos Health

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

Blatant advertisement the point of which is to abuse WP for visibility. Sources are all press releases/churnalism/SPS. SPeedy was declined with a basis that "long-term article & not irredeemably promotional; suggest AfD". All I can say is yes - barrels of industrial waste do get dumped into national forests and not found until years later. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a short factul listing. This is not some corner store looking for a free listing, it's a 14,000 employee company. Reality is company info is made available via press releases and websites. It is also NASDAQ WP:LISTED which needs to be in the article text (I added it). Here is a round up of third party coverage [19]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A atock watchers blog? really? And WP is not a directory - if there are not sufficient independent sources with signficant discussion so that we we can write an encyclopedia article, the page should not exist. Surprising !vote to me. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stockwatcher blog shows that the listed company has analysts following it which means there is definately regular independent coverage available. Call me old fashioned but I believe large companies that employ people and make stuff and that people's pensions are invested in are a lot more notable than housewives who were once pageant queens who won a contest of looks and east german handball players who played in the Olympics once but we can barely source their names. I'm as anti spam as anyone but this is a short factual listing with sources. Sure it can be improved, but the company is clearly notable. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call me old fashioned but industrial pollution is not any less pollution based on who dumps it into WP - there is no difference in the abuse if it is a beauty pageant queen or a company that employs lots of people or Mother Teresa. We are not a vehicle for giving more visibility to anything or anyone and we are not a directory. There is nothing to learn from in this page. Wikidata is fine with directory entries; they want to include every factoid in the world over there. That is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a serious hospital in Massachusetts, and there seems to be no reason for deletion of this page. UserTalk: DanTheMagicalMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthemagicalman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That !vote has nothing to do with NCORP or N generally. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 10 April 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. So Why 11:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)

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

Seems to be a forked article with no proper description of the composition in the main body and no reliable secondary sources devoted to the composition. It is mostly copy-pasted with some modifications from An Wasserflüssen Babylon. Might be reasonable to write a proper self-standing article, but that has not happened so far. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and userfy. It is reasonable that an article on this topic be written as a stand-alone article but so far no substantial content has been written on the main body, i.e. the organ composition by Johann Adam Reincken. Forked content copy-pasted from An Wasserflüssen Babylon has been written, with sources copied from that article. There are also some reliable secondary sources not included, almost all originating from the musicologist Ulf Grapenthin. For that reason I recommend that the content be userfied until some kind of readable content be created. I do not see any reason to merge An Wasserflüssen Babylon, since one longish sentence suffices to describe Reincken's composition (and the section from the main body). Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and procedural close of this AfD:

Reasons for "Keep" were already explained at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn.
Reasons for "procedural close of this AfD": AfD is not the correct process to request a "redirect and userfy" as the OP did, merge and split proposal tags + talk page discussion are. The OP has removed the split proposal tag *which contained a link to the relevant talk page discussion (see previous point)* at least half a dozen times (four times in the last 24h), without even once commenting on the talk page where the "redirect and userfy" discussion should have taken place in the first place. So, at this point the split from the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn article is uncontested per the regular procedure, and I don't see why I should be talking to myself in the Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn talk page section if everyone who commented there agrees the topic merits an article in its own right. This AfD is just a spurious excuse to skip regular procedure, i.e. talk page discussion if the OP proposes a "redirect and userfy". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I oppose the "redirect and userfy" idea: there's no reason for that, for the reasons explained at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn and in this edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edits on "music" ("musical analysis"?) come directly from the score (IMSLP?). They constitute original research and synthesis. The book of Pieter Dirksen on Heinrich Scheidemann has been briefly mentioned en passant but there are no properly sourced edits on the composition of Johann Adam Reincken (so far). AfD's are decided by consensus amongst interested users. Mathsci (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary comment. I am due to acquire two lengthy prefaces in English on the complete organ works of Reincken. They are edited by Klaus Beckmann (Schott Music, 2004) and Pieter Dirksen (Breitkopf & Härtel, 2005). As far as I am aware, these English versions are not available on-line (the ISBN references are available). These seem to be amongst the best sources for the current proposed article. They have not so far been used. The same applies to material from Grove Music Online (Oxford University Press), which so far has not been used. That includes valuable content related to the chorale prelude on the stylus fantasticus, Reincken's musical influence on the Hamburg opera and the collegium musicum. Again I do not see any way the main article An Wasserflüssen Babylon could be merged in a meaningful way. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Since the AfD listing was initated:
- Nine additional sources
- Content expanded & referenced
- Images, music examples etc.

IMHO this AfD is as moot as can be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More refs added, and in the mean while another editor (Rathfelder) de-stubbed the article, again suggesting there is no reason to keep this AfD discussion going for no relevant reason whatsoever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments. Multiple images have been appropriated from the main article without attribution: see e.g.file1 and file2. There are multiple lilypond coding errors in images (<score vorbis="1"> instead of <score>). One of the main sources, "Bach: The Learned Musician" by Christoph Wolff (2000), has been superseded by 2005 research: the article does not take that into account. Stinson's sourced content on BWV 653 has been shuffled randomly, including into different sections: it is unrecognizable and misleading in the new context. Userfying still seems to be the only option. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion about the merits of this article, but it is clearly not a stub. Stub is primarily a measure of quantity, not quality. Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subsidiary comments. On 14 April 2018, I received soft back copies of Reincken's complete organ works, edited by Pieter Dirksen (Breitkopf, 2005) and Klaus Beckmann (Schott, 2008, 2nd edition). Both have a long commentary in English: when that exists, there is no reason to use a German version. Both versions are playable on the organ and the baroque registration is carefully described. (Schott's is in a more standard format for organists, i.e. A4 R.) It is almost impossible to reconcile the English prose commentary of Dirksen and Beckmann with the fork article. A general wikipedia reader would be able to read the prose commentary without problem; but the fork article is inpenetrable, almost as if unrelated to the baroque organ. Both editors give a biographical account of Reincken, including the relationship with Scheidemann and Buxtehude: the fork does not provide any proper context and seems to have been created by cherry-picking sentences. Both of the editors give detailed footnotes (citations), none of which have been included in the fork article. The sources, history and transmission of the works are described in detail by Beckmann, but that appears to be too technical for inclusion on wikipedia. Authenticity is only discussed for the fugue and toccata. There is a discussion on ornamentation, which, according to Beckmann, is already so carefully worked out in Reincken's transmitted sources, that any further ornamentation should only be used sparingly. The historical organ played by Reincken in Hamburg is described in detail by both editors. The reception describes the typical prejudices of late 19th-century commentators such as August Gottfried Ritter, who gives a withering account of Reincken's fantasia, "His frequently and respectfully mentioned work does not contain a trace of the elegaic melancholy of the chorale [...] one lays down this piece of work [...] this fruit of great efforts, with a feeling of disappointment and uneasiness." Beckmann gives facsimiles for the chorale in tablature notation and at the beginning of Altnickol's stave version. On Page 83 Dirksen gives what he calls a tabulated description of the chorale: it contains 10 lines, giving the bar numbers and the German text. The description in the forked article seems barely related to Dirksen's commentary. All of Dirksen's footnotes have been omitted in the fork. The registration of the chorale is explained by both editors with "O" used as Oberwerk and "R" as Rückpositif: no description of that has been given. The attempt to convert Dirksen's prose into some kind of list format, particularly in the attempted "musical analysis," has not been successful. Userfying seems like the only reasonable option. I still cannot see what could be merged from the original article. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are summaries, not a complete rendering of the entire content of a source. E.g. a detailed description of the organ would, in Wikipedia's surroundings, be more appropriate at St. Catherine's Church, Hamburg#Organ (or in a separate article about the organ) than in the An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) article. Most of the content mentioned above is duly summarized, e.g. August Gottfried Ritter's rejection of the piece is mentioned in the reception section of the article (etc). Of course none of this is necessarily a final version of the article, but as written it is adequate and appropriate for Wikipedia's mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the cumulative edits of User:Francis Schonken are either (1) appropriated without proper attribution or (b) constitute original research and synthesis (so not in "the voice of wikipedia"). The attempt at "musical analysis" seems to be some kind of parody. Having examined most of the documents (including in the Anderson Room of the University Library, Cambridge), my impression is that these edits have not been made with access to the main reliable secondary sources and thus cannot be verified. One four-page German extract has appeared (essentially by happenstance), but so far that is all. Without the English versions, the fork article seems misleading and confing to general wikipedia readers. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has been "appropriated without proper attribution" (where do you get that? – please explain); There is no "original research and synthesis" (everything is duly referenced to reliable sources – not even the minutest detail has been demonstrated thus far as being OR ofr SYNTH). There is nothing "misleading and confing to general wikipedia readers" – on the contrary, I'm not the one advocating the article would be rewritten for performing organists, it is written for a general readership. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC); typo correction 10:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A complete objective assessment has been given as requested. In my case, I paid 50 pounds for two scores: in addition to having the English versions, I had the pleasure of sight-reading the chorale on a 1705 baroque organ. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- re. "A complete objective assessment has been given" – incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please can someone else comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are only 2 votes. 1 delete (the nom) and 1 keep. The 2 contributors appear to be expert in their field and I could not vote at their level of competence in this field. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 2 May 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. czar 06:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Strome

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted, he fails WP:NHOCKEY. If/when he does something notable the article can be re-created. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and likely WP:TOOSOON, as noted above. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forestry 2017

(Find video game sources: "Forestry 2017" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS. There is a shortish GRY-Online review, but I cannot find anything else in-depth from reliable sources. None of the sources in the article appear to be reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Non-notable, and I'd also say, really poorly written. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahajahan Badshah Shuvo

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

An autobiography with notability and sourcing issues. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The creator and main contributor is named "Sbshuvo", or "S.B. Shuvo", meaning they're almost definitely writing an auto-biography. They also removed the speedy deletion template the nominator placed, something they've been warned about in the past (I just gave them a final warning then). StewdioMACK (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because it is COI promo cruft, but speedy bc the COI author removed the Speedy template. Theredproject (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no case to be made for notability here, as refs do not exist to support one. especially precious is the line in the article that says "And to develop wikipedia article, he working continuously." That much is obvious.104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:13, 3 April 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar pradhan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sagar Pradhan

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

Sourcing is weak and unreliable to establish notability. A search turns up nothing as well. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like an autobiography and isn't notable per nom. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 or Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em)

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) 23:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babasan Tsyrenzhapovich Tsyrenov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER due to rank and awards and lack of secondary reliable coverage. An air gunner, Tsyrenov received two Orders of the Patriotic War 1st class which does not make him notable. Of the references, the warheroes reference is actually to a comment, other two are to unreliable WP:SPS, and Krasnaya Zvezda (the dead link) is a routine announcement of recipients of the Medal for Battle Merit. I could find no evidence that he is considered a "legendary hero" as internet searching only turns up run of the mill Buryat Victory Day stories. This article was previously deleted on the Russian Wikipedia. Kges1901 (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom; the postwar awards appear to be commemorative rather than for individual accomplishment.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because Russian Wikipedia deletes certain articles doesn't mean that we should follow suit. I know it have a lot of articles that we here might consider to be junk because they use unreliable sources. But, I wont object if the result will be delete.--Biografer (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Industrial School, Ooty

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

Ow, yes, this school exists. But it does not make the grade towards the notability guidelines. Unless there is an Indian name that the school does not discloses (not even on their French-registered website), there are very few reliable source on Google and Google News. Most info on the website is sourced by the website of the subject or the Jesuits, the owner. The Banner talk 11:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability and no list of schools in Ooty to redirect to or a notable organization, I mean, there are Jesuit organizations in India, but it's not clear which branch it could redirect to. . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, refs don't assert a sufficient claim to notability. Szzuk (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trigonometry in Galois fields

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

All references have the same author. Article created by the author of the references (his login name is its initials). Non notable subject: A Scholar Google search provides only references to the same author [20] Thus WP:COI and WP:OR D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity or delete. The article is nicely written, but the nom is correct: I don't see any significant reliable sources independent of the main author. This topic has not yet generated coverage in independent RS, per WP:RS, that are needed for verifiability and notability per WP:GNG--perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. While not yet suitable for WP, this content may fit better at Wikiversity and may be a good candidate for a transwiki transfer. Otherwise, without independent RS, and with no good merge or redirect targets I could find, deletion seems the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete (vote change) ~~. keep~~ if you education does not allow you to carry out due diligence in the area. Finite-field trigonometry is fairly well developed, albeit narrow area of research. WP:TOOSOON is a ridiculous judgement: it is at least 20 years, even by sources cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: perhaps you could indicate those sources, because the ones actually in the article seem pretty weak: MathSciNet shows only irrelevant or self-citations. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article from as early as 1972, this is 1973. You have to search for trigonometry+"finite field". Anyway, I do not really care about the subject. Please notice that "the author of the references" is the only one sho treats the field systematically. But, first, there are also article by others, most probably his students, because they also appear is his co-authors. Second, there is a bunch of disconnected articles dealing with trigonometric formulae in finite fields. Since some authors are Russian, there may be publications in Russian language. Third, this is related to cryptography. Therefore I think this subject deserves some attention. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: I have spent about 5--10 minutes comparing the first paper you mentioned to the article in question (which is to say, enough to skim both but not to fully digest the subtleties of either). As far as I can tell, they are not actually related. The journal article is about character sums of a finite field, i.e., certain maps from the field into the complex numbers; the wikipedia article is about functions from certain finite fields to their sub-fields. Am I mistaken? --JBL (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK you convinced me to change my opinion, especially keeping in mind that article authors do not care to chirp in here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is undergraduate maths text, nothing useful here, the article was created in 2006 and has more or less sat unchanged since. Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Cocina

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

Restaurant is not listed or described as being notable (WP:N/WP:CORP); article is a stub and seems primarily meant for self-promotion. ivan (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (note: article creator): I believe there's enough sourcing to justify keeping this article. Reliable sources provide an overview of the restaurant's history and reception, and I'd prefer to see this article expanded in the same way as Country Bill's and Esparza's (GA-quality articles about PDX restaurants). Nuestra Cocina has also been included in local and national "best restaurant" lists, including ones published by Travel + Leisure and The Daily Meal. If there is consensus not to keep the article at this time, I'd prefer a simple redirect to List of restaurants in Portland, Oregon, because the redirect would still serve a purpose and could be expanded at a later date. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entities that receive critical reviews in regional media are considered notable. The Oregonian is a regional newspaper. That plus listing in a reputable travel guide and a "50 best" national award seems sufficient. I'm not including Willamette Week because it's a little wobbly -- it's probably best described as a city alt weekly, but we should have a discussion elsewhere (I do use its sister publication in Seattle, The Stranger for sourcing at times, especially its Genius Awards. Both have Pulitzer winning writers, if that helps.) ☆ Bri (talk) 15:45, 3 April 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. There's a suggestion to merge wiht Toby Fox, but it's also stated that there's no sources. I don't see how you can merge something which is unsourced, so just going with a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earthbound Halloween Hack

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

Not seeing any evidence of notability for just another game mod, which even the creator though was a bit rubbish. Also relies far too much on promotional material (and reads like that in tone overall).Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not independently notable from Toby Fox. ~Mable (chat) 13:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could possibly be merged with the Earthbound article, so the article itself will be deleted, but be merged with the Earthbound article. ~Dan (chat)
Delete Currently nothing to merge. If there is something notable that exists about it, it should be added to Toby Fox instead. It would be WP:UNDUE to add anything about it to Earthbound._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toby Fox. I found this HG101 article on it, but it's not enough to meet the GNG - should be covered in Toby Fox (and possibly to a lesser degree in Undertale) until or unless more sources are found.--Alexandra IDV^talk 08:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article no longer link s to this AFD as the link was altered.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - article should be purged of any information should be moved to Toby Fox's article, and then deleted. It's unsourced, but Toby's article is very thin on it's own. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOS theorem

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only references outside the linked forum post I could find are PDFs replicating contents of said forum post. deadwikipedian (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has probably be written by the author of the unique reference (both names contain "Kim"), and the reference has not been regularly published. Moreover, this article is about a very simple case of polynomial SOS theory, and there nothing that indicates that this case deserves a specific treatment. D.Lazard (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a NEOLOGISM. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopedic article, no reliable sources. Turgidson (talk) 04:02, 4 April 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. WP:INTERVIEW is not a policy or guideline page, and the arguments appealing to that are relatively weak when compared to the notability guideline itself, which requires secondary sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Perin

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

Non-notable individual, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources are either interviews or passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO and general notability guideline. PROD contested, so raising for wider discussion. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please note that WP:INTERVIEW gives a nuanced consideration on the notability of interviews - e.g. An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. It would be useful if you can show that the interviewers or the publications are not independent as there is no proscription on the use of interviews for notability. There are also sources in Italian - e.g. [21], [22], [23]. Hzh (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material. My understanding is that interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject and I can't find any source that provide indepth coverage about the subject. I can't read Italian so it's hard for me to comment on the reliability and the depth of covrage provided above but with the help of Google translate I can guess that it appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E "Meet the Designer Behind John Travolta's Dapper Don Wardrobe in 'Gotti'". Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you cited refers to accuracy of stated "fact", not about notability. I think you'd find that most of facts in the article can be found in the words written by the interviewers themselves (see for example the article by Hollywood Reporter) rather than the words said by the interviewee, therefore your point is not relevant here (I see only one fact that needed independent verification). In any case they can also be substantiated from other sources - check the Italian sources with substantial parts not based on interviews. Those Italian sources should be sufficient, it always helps to check sources other than English as notability is not determined by the language of the sources. I think you have misinterpreted WP:BLP1E, John Travolta is a person not an event. Hzh (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above I can't read Italian so it's not possible for me to comment on those sources and no I'm not misinterpreting WP:BLP1E, The reason for BLP1E is that I can't see any coverage about the subject except designing a suit for John Travolta which he wore at the Critics’ Choice Awards. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources refer to him as the designer for John Travolta over a few years, not just one event. They also refer his work on the film Gotti, therefore WP:BLP1E does not apply. Here I'm not arguing for or against the deletion, just stating the problems with the rationale for the deletion. It's marginal as far as I can see - technically he qualifies under coverage in multiple independent sources when the Italian sources are taken into account, but something marginal should be discussed first before it is kept or deleted. Hzh (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nom misunderstands WP:INTERVIEW, per which this guy is clearly notable. The sources found by Hzh in Italian are also sufficient unto themselves. There are sources in other languages too, such as Greek. This seems like a clear-cut pass of WP:GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. The fact that the subject "dressed Travolta for the 2016 Critics' Choice Awards" is hardly a claim of significance, and there's nothing better. The achievments are not significant and I don't see a reason to keep this article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant achievements yet, WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 18:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 2 April 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! 20:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boudicca Proxy Consultants

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Boudicca Proxy Consultants" is a notable proxy solicitation company. References are reliable and good.SDRaR111 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SDRaR111 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My opinion goes with SDRaR111 as "Boudicca Proxy Consultants" is notable for its several mentions in www.thetimes.co.uk. The linkedin link should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedlock143 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC) — Wedlock143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Point of Order - SDRaR111 and Wedlock143, AFD is not a vote so please don't treat it as such. It's also suspicious when users with few edits (or their first edit) seem to be attracted to the same AFD. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per User:K.e.coffman above. I can only find passing mentions of the company in WP:RS online. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - no notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 2 April 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. A discussion can occur on the talk page if a redirect or merge is preferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanticism

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

WP:NOTDICT Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHANCE WP:DEMOLISH This article hasn't had a chance to develop yet. Look at both the essays I linked to here for information that may be useful. The article is not finished being built so I don't think it should be demolished. Here is an excerpt from the demolition essay: "When an article is being written, and sources are being found and validated, then the article will be small and mostly unsourced and not very full of information. This is, of course, called a stub. Stubs are stubs because they have yet to be expanded. Often, an article or set of articles will be run across that seem devoid of much information. Sometimes it will be nothing but cruft that must be removed. But often, the subject matter is simply in-progress. Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it." I feel like this article is necessary for aromanticism to be a more widely recognized thing. As is, there have been studies that suggest up to 4% of the population may be aromantic and not know it, so I feel like people need a little more information about aromanticism on sites that are well-known like Wikipedia and not just sites that are specially for aromantic people since most people who may be aromantic won't think to look for those sites. Also, aromanticism is a real thing that sources can be used to back up. Here is an example of a source that can be added to back up the information: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/11/meet-the-aromantics-not-cold-dont-have-romantic-feelings-sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.137.207 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to romantic orientation for now, until that article gets big enough to warrant a split? - 96.21.237.159 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asexuality. This is what the article describes. Szzuk (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually asexuality and aromanticism are two different things and a person can be either one without being the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.137.207 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this appears to be a concpet covered in reliable sources The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships and The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor, I'd prefer a merge to Romantic orientation. It's a subtopic thereof, and the content is so short that it would fit well there. It can be spun off again later if there's more sourced content. Sandstein 09:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the delete rationale by Eddie since this is not merely a dictionary term; it is a concept that is widely discussed even if not using this actual term; think of the thousands of articles where writers criticize people who are together yet have not formed a romantic bond yet. I also disagree with the merge rationale since I feel it minimizes the aromantic stance and seems akin to merging asexuality into "sexual orientation". I also feel that the article is expandable. Also, the two opinions voiced before the 27th should be disregarded because the article has been improved considerably since then. My third reason for opposing a merge is that collaboration on improving this article becomes more difficult when the article isn't there to begin with. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply feel that at this moment, there is not enough material in the article to be a stand alone article, and it would fit much better being merged to a parent article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:32, 8 April 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Therese of the Little Flower Catholic Church

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

Not notable under any of the thresholds, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NCHURCH. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete RC parish with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In 1998, this parish saw its 50th anniversary and the Reno Gazette-Journal included in its September 26 Sunday edition a 12 page special insert about the church.[24] The insert is called a "special advertising publication" and features numerous ads congratulating the church as well as articles which were written by Dorothy Kosich, a journalist who normally wrote for the Reno Appeal. While the insert is labeled an advertisement, the articles therein are, in my opinion, reliable sources. Most of the current building was completed in 1978 and by 1998 had 3,500 families.[25] With this information, I found more articles, including: an announcement of the church's founding in 1947,[26] an article on planned construction from 1976,[27] some brief mentions of construction in 1978,[28][29] and a bit of detail in obituaries of church priests. I generally favor inclusion for older churches (especially pre-depression-era churches) whose buildings and congregations have made a mark on a city. As this church doesn't meet my arbitrary cut-off and the current state of the article is not encyclopedic, I don't feel it necessary to !vote keep. That said, I think a borderline case could be made, and am providing these links in case anyone wishes to make use of them (check out WP:TWL if you do not have access to newspapers.com). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran a couple of Proquest news archive searches on differing keywords adding sources to article as I went through the hits, stopping and coming here to opine when I had satisfied myself that this is a notableparish. Lots more sources out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Oddly, I do not seem to have hit on the same articles mentioned by User:Smmurphy, different terms different engine, I suppose, But add his to mine and the ones each of us scanned or read but did not list, and I think you will agree that there is enough to show notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Smmurphy and E.M.Gregory. --Doncram (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my standards. It (1) "It has had two or more notable congregants." (although this is arguable.) (2) "It ... has been a major place of pilgrimage, beyond merely local or congregational interest." (3) "A significant icon, relic, or other holy item has been housed therein." Bearian (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above and the ones added to the article during this discussion, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tavalia Griffin

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

Ninfa public award is not significant and well know to pass pornbio. Even if it were, this clearly fails gng and n as sourced to online directories and other unsuitable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass pornbio. Theredproject (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nymph public award could be considered. But the article does not offer any reliable reference beyond the indications.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable performer in pornographic productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this substub about a non-notable porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 7 April 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno#Parishes of the Diocese of Reno. I'll also rename to St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church (Reno, Nevada) as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church Reno Nevada

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

Not notable under any of the thresholds, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NCHURCH. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete RC parish with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno#Parishes of the Diocese of Reno and rename to St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church (Reno, Nevada) to meet our naming standards as a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 05:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a list serves absolutely no purpose that I can see. Redirecting to a paragraph or section with relevant prose I can understand, but I don't see the benefit of any renaming or redirecting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a church in the Reno Diocese; this is the exact purpose of redirects (and the name as-is doesn't make any sense; it's not a Mormon temple). Doesn't harm anything to do so. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially what you're suggesting though is to create a new article St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church (Reno, Nevada) and redirect it elsewhere, for no apparent purpose or reason? That is technically a different discussion altogether, and still involves the current article's content being deleted and the article being made redundant, so surely a delete vote makes sense here? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno#Parishes of the Diocese of Reno and rename to St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church (Reno, Nevada) exactly as User:Mrschimpf suggests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swarna Bharat Party

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

This is an unrecognized political party that exist. The only passing coverage is in the form of regurgitated press releases and blogs and in the context of what some notables have said/done. No elections fought, no representatives. Also, while not relevant to notability discussions, the article history shows a lot of promotion. —SpacemanSpiff 08:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria and prevalence of notability I know for creating article about an years old political party cannot be seen here. My Lord (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, notwithstanding the history of promotional editing on this page. Alex Shih (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I was thinking about dragging this to AFD and Spiff beat me to the nomination.Grr.....Anyways, per above and nom.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-promotional and there is no inherent notability in being a registered political party. FITINDIA 19:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Achanta

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:NACTOR.

The subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and apparently has appeared in couple of film/TV shows with minor roles. Saqib (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied. Deb (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyatalk

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

Blatant advert for vanity internet forum using Wikipedia to drive traffic –Ammarpad (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I already tried PROD Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:00, 2 April 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. The center of the discussion was regarding WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST, and whether or not this article subject met these guidelines. It also centered around Haroon Janjua#Awards and whether or not the awards are notable, and hence whether or not the article subject is notable as being a recipient. In the end, both sides made statements that basically stated "yes, this meets the guideline" and "yes, the awards are notable" vs "no, this does not meet the guideline" and "no, the awards are not notable". The sources provided here seemed to be providing primary coverage on the award ceremony or event or primarily covering the award itself more-so than providing primary coverage on the person. In the end, neither side made direct and compelling arguments that fully took the concerns from the opposition into account. Therefore, I find that there is no consensus regarding the deletion of this article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Janjua

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

Fails to meet GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. most of the cited ref are self published. Saqib (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the WP:JOURNALIST criteria is not very helpful as it is shared with Artist and other creative professionals. The Haroon_Janjua#Awards section is enough for me - that's more recognition than 95% of journalists get, and especially for a relatively young person. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Most of the awards are not notable. --Saqib (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the first one is notable for sure. Presented by the UN Secretary General. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsoever, the subject clearly fails GNG. receiving an award which does not have its own Wikipedia page, does not makes one notable. --Saqib (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He won silver right here [30]. I found video of the presentations from 2015 [31] (not Moon preesenting) and 2016 when Moon presented. I suspect the author got confused. So the Moon part should be removed. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the subject himself writing this autobio. --Saqib (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tagged it that way, and an acct by the same name edited it, but an IP wrote it. I noticed the first edit by the subject was to fix his name, which is not something the subject would have gotten wrong if he was the creator. Also the page contains enough ESL stlye errors that I doubt it was professionally written. But who knows really. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the article is notable enough, [32] [33] however it needs alot of improvement. M A A Z T A L K 13:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly, article appears on some notable personality but when one digs deep, more or less it is a promotional autobio piece. It would be better if you explicitly cite some references to establish the notability of the subject instead of posting vague search results which does not bring anything either. Writing for major publications does not makes one notable enough to quality for Wikipedia entry. --Saqib (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about the subject, not by the subject.And, please don't link G-Search pages, as they are meaningless as to determination of reliability et al.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources about the subject:

https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1148590
http://www.edinburghjournalisminternational.com/competition
https://www.thecable.ng/thecable-editor-fisayo-soyombo-shortlisted-2015-thomson-foundation-journalist-award
http://unca.com/2015-unca-awards-winners/
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2016/01/labouring-for-unpayable-debt/ M A A Z T A L K 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this person actually accomplished some impressive widely fead work. He got awards for the work. Way more notable than most olympic athletes or pageant winners who are barely noticed. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: But you're missing the point. I am unable to find a single source which discusses the subject directly and in detail which means the subject fails to pass basic GNG. The subject may have received some awards, but not all of them are notable or major enough. On the other hand, you yourself nominated this BLP for speedy deletion only a couple of day ago and now you want to kept it. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged a batch of AfC "Advert" declines as a test and cleanup exercise. This was one of the few tat survived. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LPac, you're just being acutely disruptive over here.Moving this kind of acute-promo-stuff to main-space, after a declined G11 seems to be the very definition of pointy action to me and it is not the sought end-result of the repealing of your restrictions.If you find some notability in the draft, please clean the article up, to minimal qualities.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I genuinely feel this subject is about 100 times more accomplished and notable than the subjects of many bios here. For example most cricket players (some of whom can't even be verified to have existed beyond a score sheet entry have pages) , East German handball players, pageant winners and one hit music artists that are auto notable for radio play are kept at AfD. By hey we have to accept that Wikipedia values fancruft far more than professionals who actually accomplish useful work. Reporters that go into tough areas and do hard work that wins them awards are less interesting than American teenagers with great genes who attend a one day contests and get a sash and crown. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--None of the awards are notable.The first one is one conferred by UN, upon those who cover their work in hallowing prose.Just because it's UN, it hardly means that they are adverse to self-promotion.And, this is G11-able stuff.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis we should toss out all industry awards starting with all pageants which are purely self servibg attention getting awards conferred by the pageant companies to generate press.Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, we regularly do that in all-most all cases of CORP-articles.But, as much as there are reputed journalism awards (none of which has been clinched by the subject), there exists notable and intellectually independent industry-awards too!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A section you cut out " Haroon Janjua had published an article on November 4, 2016, about the plight of the lady from Afghanistan, Sharbat Gula who had been arrested and locked up in Pakistan for purportedly obtaining a fake Pakistani ID after a crackdown. According to the article, "Gula’s face is well-known around the world. American photographer Steve McCurry’s 1984 portrait of Gula, then a 12-year-old orphan in a Pakistani refugee camp, became one of National Geographic magazine’s most famous cover images" actually deals with a story he published that I remember distinctly as being covered by other media. He tracked down Afghan Girl and published about her. Other media reported on his story. I'll see if I can dig up refs. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: It was Steve McCurry himself who first reported about Gula's arrest on November 3. Also see this Guardian report from October 2016 and from February 2015. --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this is coat tailing on the story he was not involved in. Ok, if we have debunked some claims and Winged thinks all the awards are useless than there is nothing I more can say. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Are you still in favour of keep it. I think it would be better if you clarify because other users (see below) quoting you. --Saqib (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in WP:RS. Sorry to say but Maaz mentioned links isn't what needs to pass WP:NJOURNALIST. Non-notable awards. Störm (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Legacypac and User:Ma'az. He is notable and written a lot. --Spasage (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, how does writing a lot equates to passage of notability guidelines?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin -- Please ignore this instance of Poisoning the well by Saqib. If that RfC closes by banning the indicated users from AfD then fine, but it has not closed yet, and the fact that it exists means nothing. Anyone here could start exactly such an RfC on Saqib's AfD practices and obviously there's no conclusion to be drawn from that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note for closing admin -- **Note The IP address is suspected of socking and an investigation is under way at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating. Furthermore, it is suspected that a XFD topic banned user is behind this IP per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_possibly_being_used_by_topic_banned_user_to_get_round_ban. Furthermore, it is obvious from the discussion that there's a clear consensus to topic ban the reported users. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note for closing admin -- Saqib can't stop poisoning the well here. Sure there's an open sock puppet investigation on me. One in which no one but two disgruntled AfD editors thinks there's a possibility I'm doing anything wrong, which I'm not. Still open proceedings are not evidence of anything, otherwise they wouldn't still be open. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Legacypac. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable prizes, writing news stories, it all looks pretty ROUTINE for a journalist. Notability is validated by having other journalists write about you, which I am not finding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has the sources to pass GNG, plus at least the first award is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that this is a notable award? According to the linked article, he won the silver (presumably second place) 2015 United Nations Correspondents Association#The Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize. The WP subhead page on these awards is unsourced, no lists of former awardees. Can you demonstrate that 2nd place for this award is a notable prize?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: which sources? The article cite only 3 and none discuss the subject in depth but merely namechecking. --Saqib (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 14:58, 16 April 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 - author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gulone

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

Appears to be a case of WP:NFF and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. PROD contested by the author without providing a reason or any improvements. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 2 April 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. – Joe (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosure

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

pasted reference is not exist. BoeunKim (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this sounded like a hoax article at first, but then I found this book (page 73) that actually details the ritual! So whilst it's legit and that book seems like a credible enough reference point, I don't know if an article of any significance can be built from it, or if the practice is even that notable. Searching for "gosure ritual" seems to yield more/better results. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per search result of Google Book. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable ritual, as proved by sources cited by above editors. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 15 April 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! 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rights Club Nepal

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

Club does not appear to meet criteria at WP:ORG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination but the org lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one reliable ref in the article the rest primary or youtube, google and news showing nothing. It appears to be a local club with limited numbers of members. Szzuk (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fatus Fee

AfDs for this article:

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR (only minor roles so far), WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. No significant coverage online in WP:RS. Article was speedied once in 2015, and twice in 2016 after the first AFD. Since then, for his acting career his IMDB entry says he appeared once last year as himself on CBSN on Assignment, and in his music career he's done collaborations with Snypaz and Vic Spencer, but though I can see the songs on Amazon and SoundCloud, I can find no coverage in WP:RS for them. Zero GNews his for his real name or stage name. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of thousands of articles we have on non-notable actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be WP:TOOSOON, needs prominent roles or a notable album Atlantic306 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-salt. I concur with the nominator. This has been AfD'd once before, and deleted four times prior to this. It was salted against recreation for a year, and should probably be re-salted again. YouTube isn't a determinant necessarily of lack of notability, but if "Drug Love" is what he is best known for, its <200 views speaks to virtually no notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 9 April 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 article has already been moved to Droughts in Korea. The current scope of the article is a notable topic. Any remaining concerns of the nominator can be addressed through editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 drought in Korea

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

Droughts happening every year in Korea, so the year '2015' does not mean anything special. SungMinSeung (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inclined to agree, but if they are frequent, then maybe their cause and proposed actions, coupled with any notable incidents as a result, could be formulated into a single article? I'd suggest either Renaming this to Droughts in Korea (or similiar) or Delete this and create a new general article for Korean droughts. Searching for "korea drought" returns alot from 2017 too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A drought in Korea doesn't happening every year, #1, #2 because of there is East Asian rainy season. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important part of North Korea to illustrate their disasters, could possibly be merged - Danthemagicalman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthemagicalman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Droughts happening every year in Korea" - defined as "a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall". So just being dry for a while every year doesn't make it a drought. It's the fact the rainfall was much lower than usual - and it is specifically clarified it was under half the usual rate. So that would appear to undercut the grounds used to refer for deletion. It meets minimal requirements for notability. While I would say it is *better* to be a general "Korean Droughts" article, this doesn't seem necessary to avoid deletion - hence Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Droughts in Korea". There is a drought in North Korea in 2017.[34]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 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! 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 4

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

Article currently does not satisfy the requirements set by WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG; contains no sources and no known reliable coverage exists. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 06:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am compelled to point out WP:NEXIST, as the nominator says the article contains no sources. But that is not a reason to delete in itself because sources could possibly exists but nobody has put them in the article yet. With that being said, this album has been listed at many electronic music sites but has not received coverage beyond its basic existence, so there really are no possibilities beyond WP:ROUTINE for this album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here is why but first a comment. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 You do realize that you are being a hipocrite right? You contributed heavily to the page and then you decide to nominate it for deletion? That is hypocritical. I am appalled at this. Please consider this when deciding. My reasoning for keeping this is that yes it is a small article, but it is also in the stub category. It is being worked on. Thanks for considering! (User Page Here! | Chat With Me!):) -Modded

Comment - Admins may want to look into the argument between two users as mentioned in the above vote. Meanwhile, there are three previous volumes in this Monstercat series and those all have their own articles that are much better sourced than this one. Perhaps this is what the above voter is presently working on. But I will point out that even though the articles on the previous volumes have many sources, most of those are about the bands and/or their songs, as opposed to coverage of the compilation album itself, and that is probably what will happen to the article for this volume too. Compilation albums like these need to be noticed in their own right, and notability for a compilation is not inherited from the artists/songs therein. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG here. Most hits are social media, tracklist databases, and music/video streaming websites. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BiondVax

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

Page as it stands is spam, based almost entirely on very low quality SPS, press releases, crappy stock chasing blogs, etc. Makes claims about their lead vaccine based on non-MEDRS refs that are not fully independent of the company. This is not a WP article. It is not clear to me if this meets NCORP at all, but this page is nothing even approaching a WP article. Delete per TNT/PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Times of Israel is a RS. Bloomberg and NASDAQ are reliable sources. Industry specific media are great sources. Even Seeking Alpha has a good reputation for coverage of companies as a leading investment site. See the article talk for more analysis. This is not a medical article subject to WP:MEDRS it's a profile of a WP:LISTED company that works in medical research. Evidently no source and no information is acceptable to Jytdog around this company. For topics I'm way more interested in companies that develop stuff, make stuff, that people's retirement accounts are invested in, that build buildings and create jobs. In this case, their flu vaccine could save countless lives if it continues to prove out. That's a heck of a lot more encyclopedic and notable than video game charactors and pageant queens and obscure olympic athletes. I don't understand where the blind hostility is coming from on this topic. There are thousands of less notable topics out there to delete. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a genuinely interesting product, see for example [35] published in the news section of Nature, which quotes Vincent Racaniello, an independent influenza expert: "in theory, this combination or proteins should be universal, because every strain of flu would have them." There will probably be hundreds more such sources including material enough to satisfy MEDRS. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read this review but Peter Palese, an influenza luminary, writing in Annual Review of Medicine[36] clearly satisfies MEDRS; it cites the 2012 paper by Atsmon et al. in J Clin Immunol. As does another review by Palese for Nature Reviews Drug Discovery [37]. Some of the material around is company puffery, but Palese & Racaniello are not part of that. There's also an interview (I know I know) with Tamar Ben-Yedidia in Expert Review of Vaccines[38] and another piece by Ben-Yedidia in Human Vaccines [39]. These are proper academic journals, not republishers of press releases. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Viruses. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Between the financial disclosure and analyst coverage from being listing on Tel Aviv Stock Exchange for years, NASDAQ listed for two years, the patents across much of the world, clinical trials amd studies [40] and recently stories about them building a factory and getting grants there is a lot of available material. This is not some corner store. There is a reason WP:LISTED says nearly every public company is notable. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hand wavy theoretical crap. This page is industrial waste dumped into WP. Shovel the shit out. If somebody wants to take time to see if they can write an encyclopedia article that would be great. Not this. This needs to go. And both of you, we are not here to do WP:CRYSTALBALL hype for anybody. Most drugs fail. We do not hype drugs in development. That is not what we do here. And the ref you cited is not a MEDRS source. The claims about what their drugs does are absolutely subject to MEDRS. MEDRS developed to stop people hyping snake oil to parents of autistic kids in our articles. It is NOT OK. Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the company in question may have had representatives edit this page, and it does bear some COI hallmarks (primary sourcing from corporate pages/journals for example), its apparent notability and lasting influence would suggest that cleanup rather than deletion is the preferable recommendation here. Although as a relatively timid user, having read Jytdog's comments above, I may possibly have been intimidated into suggesting that expert editors consider whether or not there is a parent article, such as a relevant field of research, into which notable RS based text from the article in question can be merged. Edaham (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has been notable enough for mention at Universal flu vaccine for some years. The title has been a redirect since 2016. In the intervening time the company has advanced in its research, but more critically for notability, been listed on NASDEQ. If you look to the bottom of the page there is a nav box of NASDAQ listed Isreali companies, almost all of which have pages, and this company has been an unlinked entry in the nav box for some time. Globes and the Times of Israel are top tier RSs and both have covered this subject multiple times over the span of years. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've since noticed that. Agreed. Signed... oops Edaham (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took time out of my own day and worked over this incompetent piece of advertising filth. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 2 April 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 Globish (Nerrière). Leaving the history in place in the event anyone wants to merge any of it J04n(talk page) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Nerrière

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

Notability concerns. The references mention him as the creator of the term Globish but say very little else about him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have reinforced the article with further references about him from Forbes, Les Echos, Liberation, Oxford English Dictionary as well as the existing The Guardian, Toronto Star and The Australian, La Repubblica etc. Clearly he is notable with a prosperous career spanning not only creation of Globish but also in IBM, Peugeot, French Navy, Les Grandes Ecoles etc. He has authored a great number of publications.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, merge at discretion, he is only known as the 'inventor' of Globish, more or less everything discussed in the article and in the references is referring to Globish, he's not independently notable. Szzuk (talk) 15:54, 8 April 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. bd2412 T 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Shah

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

The article in The Hindu appears to be an interview with the subject, and the other reference is a routine listing of information about him, not a discussion. Does not appear to have won any notable awards. The article on him in Bengali has these same two references, no others. Am not seeing enough here to make him notable. The name itself is common enough that identifying him in a Google search is very difficult. A loose noose (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per description, article does not seem to be notable, and it seems to mostly be based on the IMdB page. DeeM28 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable films and television programmes, and hence satisfies WP:ENT. Ross-c (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A BLP that lacks any Wikipedia notability to pass GNG or WP:NACTOR (WP:ENT). Confusing search results with IMDb (mentionioned above), apparently used as an "External links" reference, that is not a reliable source per WP:RS, WP:Identifying reliable sources, or Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Trying to determine WP:NEXIST did not produce any notability. One of the references shows him in "An Adding Machine", "Prisoner of Second Avenue", "The Proposal" but I can find nothing on these. Even using IMDb there is no biography information and the subject played minor roles in Fanaa (2006) as Defence Secretary, one episode of Byomkesh Bakshi (1993–1997) in 1997, and as Inspector Yadav in Sarfarosh (1999). I would not have looked this deep to try to prove something apparently unprovable but comments by @Ross-c: mentioned "significant roles in multiple notable films and television programmes" but I could not verify this and certainly cannot find biographical sources to change this from an undersourced pseudo biography. Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is undersourced, but that is a case of WP:SOFIXIT. He's covered in the press. E.g. http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/theatre/Talking-heads/article16884220.ece http://www.nettv4u.com/celebrity/hindi/tv-actor/salim-shah His role in, for example, English, August, is not a minor one.I note your argument, but I think you've been selective to make the case for deletion, and I still think he qualifies for a Wikipedia page. Ross-c (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actors don't get a freepass over WP:GNP, there isn't enough coverage about this subject. The only reference that contributes to notability is his interview in The Hindu, certainly a serious newspaper, but not really the best source to establish notability. Furthermore, multiple independent sources to me means at least three. This isn't the case here. wikitigresito (talk) 20:45, 26 April 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) 00:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Tale Croatia

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Article created by possible COI editor who has created and recreated a deleted article on the film's director. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly amusing, the subject is an advert - with references that link to the advert and nothing else. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty confident in saying that a single ad for a tourism board isn't notable in and of itself, especially given how obscure all the associated people and places are. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no claim of notability. GregorB (talk) 09:02, 16 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of hidden gems (games)

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

This seems to be a subjective, indiscriminate list. The criteria, too, seems to be subjective. For example, one criterion to be included into the list is to "Be objectively good", which — by its very nature — is subjective. Hence, the list — in my opinion — should be deleted.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing issue has been fixed, and the criteria for objectiveness, has been redefined, many of the issues have been fixed. Of course I believe others would expand the list, but I've looked at game play for all of these games, some of them I subjectively don't like, but I added them, because of the objective criteria. Considering the list has been around for one day, I'm sure it will be expanded, seeing as the criteria has been re-defined, and the source issue has been fixed, deletion makes no sense. - Danthemagicalman (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC) TALK (5:04 PM, UTC Time)[reply]

The sourcing issue has been fixed - No it pasn't. All of the citations are other Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This list is just your opinion and nothing more. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issue has been fixed - Yes it has, I found better sources. Feel free to add the the list if you think you have better games, as I said "games, some of them I subjectively don't like" such as Xenon, but because of its innovation, I added it, feel free to add games if you wish for a broader content, until then I don't feel you have any right to judge, and as said on the article, "This video game-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.". --Danthemagicalman (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is still atrocious. You heavily use SegaRetro, which is not a usable source - its a wiki as well, so it fails WP:USERG. And while you added a source, most of the prose actually there are just your own editorials regardless. This is not how encyclopedia articles are written on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, completely subjective criteria. There is perhaps a possibility of a legitimate list, if listing games that have been described as "hidden gem" by proper sourcing, but I'm not covince that it would meet WP:LISTN, and this wouldn't be a good title or base for that in any case. ansh 666 05:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is literally just the article creator's opinion. Games that they alone consider to meet their own arbitrary criteria. An encyclopedia is not the place for this sort of content. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before you judge, it even says the last is incomplete, so if you guys want to add better games be my guest, I just thought Wikipidians deserved to know some of the hidden gems of our gaming world, which was a surprise to me this didn't exist, so feel free to edit, but don't judge an incomplete list. Also, which games do you feel are subjective, as part of Wikipidia you should help expand lackluster content, as you feel, and so by those who feel deletion, your aren't helping Wikipedia, your just ignoring the fact this article needs fixing, and are taking the lazy way out by supporting deletion."You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today". (Abraham Lincoln) - Danthemagicalman (talk)

"which games do you feel are subjective" - The word "subjective" doesn't mean what you think it does. Per Merriam-Webster, subjective means "peculiar to a particular individual" or "modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background". We're not saying "You say the games listed in this article are good, but we say they're bad"; we're saying "Any judgement on which games are good and which games are not is subjective, and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia."--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatatly subjective list criteri, right from the article title. The problem with a source-based version of the list, as Ansh666 suggested, is that once a game is described as a "hidden gem" by multiple notable sources, by definition it is no longer a hidden gem.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment once a game is described as a "hidden gem" by multiple notable sources, by definition it is no longer a hidden gem Not necessarily: just because a game is notable doesn't mean it isn't obscure (Gearheads and Operation: Inner Space spring to my mind). Adam9007 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about notability and obscurity. The term "hidden gem" means considerably more than that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research pnd list inclusion suggests not adhering to neutral POV. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article essentially admits that it's someone's POV list of games. There's already List of cult video games, this is unnecessary. To the article creator: bone up on Wikipedia policies about original research before creating articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjective list of games. Not sourced even remotely close to what would be needed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the rest of the comments about the implausibility of the article's concept or sourcing it. Not encyclopedic in the least. If you want to write up personal essays on your game opinions, go take it to WordPress or social media, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no way this article could ever be anything except WP:POV. I am amused by the criterion "Be considered objectively good (graphics, game play, design, etc.), so it can't be subjectively chosen", when by their very definition "good graphics", "good design", etc are subjective views -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious delete. There is no way this can be fixed. Suitable for a blog post. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and WP:SNOW TarkusAB^talk 12:52, 9 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate More

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award category listed "Hot d'Or Award winner – Best European Starlet" is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability criteria, shows nothing important or notable about this person. DeeM28 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: RS coverage not found. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established at all. Z359q (talk) 23:55, 8 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Thief (2005 film)

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

This non notable film, by non notable people has been in existence since pre-notability era when IP users can create article in drive by fashion. It never had source save IMdb directory listing and nothing reliable appears in search for this to merit an article.–Ammarpad (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only source is ImDB, no other sources or notability cited in this article. DeeM28 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I may be in a minority in thinking that pages should be blown up or deleted if they are not verifiable, and it may be that the majority of editors think that they should be tagged. Anyway, I agree with deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, and certainly not likely with five ratings on IMDb (that's ratings, not user reviews, let alone critical reviews). Daß Wölf 00:04, 9 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasa Handa

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other WP:SPIP sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of junk citations do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 7 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Hayasaka

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other WP:SPIP sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm kinda on the fence, because she's been in a number of films based on this listing. Moreover, I'm kind of wondering if WP:PORNBIO could use some review - but that's not for here. Either way, if I go strictly wit PORNBIO, the profundity of films she's been in doesn't really meet the grade, but where I'm on the fence is the coverage she does have. Either way, PORNBIO in its current state wins out - she doesn't meet any of the criteria there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 7 April 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 deletion (A7+G11) and protection. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Oyagbola

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

a text resume with no significant claim to significance Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see in User:Legacypac/CSD_log that I nominated a previous version for G11 deletion. "Amina Oyagbola: CSD G11 (db-spam); notified User:Hmoskva (talk · contribs) 01:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)" but don't see that in the history so this seems to be a recreation under another account. Its confusing ... anyway it needs deleting maybe again. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, looks like a resume. Already been tagged accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - aaaaaaaaaand it's gone. Close this one? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG create protected it due to repeated recreation so we are done here. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 2 April 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 Wrong Forum. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:451 Research

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

~~Non-notable company written by COI editor. Article reads like an advertisement. There's a long list of references, but none of them meet the requirements of WP:NCORP~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, this should have been on MfD. Sorry about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 2 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpmania

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

Non-notable website known for hosting vile content. Lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. References relate to the work to remove the site from the provider and site examples of content. reddogsix (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is noteworthy as other sites such as white supremacist websites have articles. And this site in particular has appeared on the news numerous times due to it's content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFB9:AAF0:7943:9445:5AC7:3337 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered in multiple reliable sources. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus established
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's true that Wikipedia is not censored, that doesn't mean we need to go out of our way to publicize hate sites like this. If there were good solid references, that would be one thing. But, the list of sources is pretty weak. One of the better sources listed in the article is The Dallas Observer. Our own article describes it as a free alternative weekly, with a circulation of 43k. That's hardly mainstream media. The Nation is generally a solid source, but the cited article just mentions Chimpmania in passing. None of the other references impress me as good sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 15:56, 8 April 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulo Lemos

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe

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

Non-notable local business. Fails WP:NCORP. Zanhe (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this will afd probably come down to whether coverage is deemed routine/trivial with a dose of local thrown in ie. Daily Camera;; articles: "New chef nourishes poetry lovers at Innisfree Cafe in Boulder", "Boulder's Innisfree Poetry Bookstore moves to bigger spot" (anouncing a move), "Poems get their due at Boulder's Innisfree", "Innisfree Poetry Bookstore: Boulder's new poetry-only bookstore is country's third"; Harvard Magazine - "Alumni: “In the Bee-Loud Glade”"; Colorado Daily - "Independent coffee shops in Boulder: Caffeine dens provide peace, pours and poetry"; Westword - "Free for All: The Five Best Free Events in Denver This Week: Dominique Christina Tuesday, December 5, 6:30 p.m. Innisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe"; Boulder Weekly - "Innisfree makes a big, if short, move". Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage, its claim to significance is that it is 1 of only 3 dedicated poetry book stores. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 2 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Cube

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO. Next to no reliable coverage exists about the artist's life and career, and they have not yet fulfilled any of the criteria laid down by WP:NMUSIC. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's assessment is accurate, I spent some time looking for sources but about all I was able to confirm is that the artist exists. He doesn't seem to have attracted any significant attention from reliable sources yet. Camerafiend (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs, nn. Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Argo

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

Fails notability: Of the three references, "Odyssey Online" is user-supplied content; "Noisey" has no reputation as reliable source; and the "Wired" piece is about Poppy, with Mars Argo only being mentioned in passing. There's not enough there to satisfy a claim of "substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources" per WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I think the wired notation is acceptable as it does cover the topic of mars argo quite significantly even if it isn't the main purpose of the article. Also, Noisey is a branch of VICE which is quite a reliable source. I would like a further explanation of what you mean by "user-supplied content". The reason Mars Argo has such little notability these days is because Titanic Sinclair tries to shut it down. Him and Mars Argo had an awkward history together and he doesn't want the past to surface. Thank you for speaking with me. Have a nice day. smartalek22 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody reading the Wired source, "Welcome to Poppy's World" could possibly call that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail", when the topic is supposed to be Mars Argo. What makes Noisey (a branch of VICE) a WP:reliable source? Where is its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? It's an ephemeral, pop-culture blog. The "Odyssey Online" site is user-generated content and the guidance at WP:UGC is clear that it's not acceptable as a source - see https://about.theodysseyonline.com/apply/ . The reason Argo has no notability is that no reliable sources exist that provide significant coverage of her. That means we shouldn't have an article. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs more cites but is notable through the collab project between her and Titanic Sinclair and Sinclair's later work. The article about Poppy in Wired will be only one of articles about the Sinclair/Poppy project which will mention Mars Argo. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic Sinclair is not notable, and neither is his collaboration with Mars Argo. This is just a couple of kids uploading to YouTube. Passing mentions of Argo in other articles does not establish notability. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic Sinclair is a notable figure as the current director of the Poppy project as featured in reliably excellent sources such as the The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/11/poppy-youtube-meme-pop-sensation-titanic-sinclair-moriah-pereira) and New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/arts/fembot-poppy-lil-miquela-kylie-jenner.html). Titanic and Mars also have 48.9K and 20K followers on Twitter respectively and their collaborative YouTube channel has almost 10 million views. They are definitely notable figures. Sunriseblossom (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Sinclair is so notable, why doesn't he have a Wikipedia article? Point me to where our guidelines show that number of Twitter followers count towards notability? This is an encyclopedia, not a pop fan tribute site, and Mars is definitely not a notable figure. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think an editor has tried to put up a Sinclair page, although I'm not sure. He will have one eventually, even the Guardian and New York Times cites mentioned above go to that as well as many other sources. I think now it's just a matter of someone determined enough to put up a well-written page for Sinclair. His work with Mars Argo and Poppy, as well as his own videos and writings (songs and the YouTube Red tv show I'm Poppy), put him in the notable-but-no-Wikipedia-page-as-yet category. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Everyone above must avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy. The existence of, and quality of, articles on Poppy and Titanic Sinclair are irrelevant to the debate on this particular Mars Argo article. Also, don't forget WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile I have seen no pronouncements within the WP community that Noisey is not a reliable source. I could be wrong but there are other places to debate that matter. So I would conclude that the Noisey review at [41] is at least partially valid, and there is another robust review from Consequence of Sound at [42]. That might be enough for basic notability but I think it's a bit of a stretch because otherwise this artist is mostly talked about in blogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You actually make a good case for inclusion. And articles about Titanic Sinclair have and will inevitably include information about Argo, as they worked together for a long and productive time. Her connection with Sinclair is relevant in terms of notability, as it seems she has retired from music and her musical history is tied-in with his still ongoing career. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the two reviews are not quite enough, but would not argue with you or anyone else for voting "Weak Keep" based on those same sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage such as Noisey, Conquest of Sound and Wired (the Poppy content could be added here as there is speculation that Poppy is Mars Argo) for WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs some more RS, but the subject is notable. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly don't believe there is enough coverage to justify an article, and coverage is about the only way we could argue for notability here. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough references for notability. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Neptune's Trident has been improving the page in the last couple of days, so the quality and material has changed for the better. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yet after a further two weeks, there is now a completely unsourced discography, but there are still only two sources that discuss Mars Argo (Noisey and Odyssey). The other four are articles about Poppy, and give Mars Argo nothing more than a name check. Of those two, Odyssey is an "... internet media company that operates based on a crowdsourced model, receiving articles from a base of thousands of volunteer authors ...". User-generated content has never been accepted as contributing to WP:GNG per WP:UGC: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." So that leaves the Noisey webpage, and that's just not enough to establish notability, per WP:SIGCOV: "... multiple sources are generally expected." Without any explanation of why an exception to our polices should be made for Mars Argo, those policies clearly indicate deletion. The closer hopefully will examine the references in the light of this. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NMUSIC and significant RS coverage not found. This is not a viable article, as the notability / sources are just not there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP:NMUSIC criteria: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Her style is compared, through the association with Titanic Sinclair, with the Poppy style and, although different, there is enough of an overlap that Argo has "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". There are only two representatives of the Sinclair-style, Mars Argo and Poppy. That Argo is consistently mentioned in articles about Sinclair is not trivial, as those sources create a pattern, and this pattern should be taken into consideration when ascertaining a notability claim. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having briefly gone down the Poppy rabbithole a few months ago, I'm not surprised to find this article now existing, and likely to be notable. Even if this subject is not deemed independently notable, and there is some legitimate debate to be had over the best way to provide coverage of the pop culture weirdness that Titanic Sinclair has spawned, it would deserve coverage on the Sinclair article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that an argument to merge the content into Titanic Sinclair (which anybody is free to do), not an argument to keep this non-notable article? --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because she is notable, as argued in above posts from myself and others, and because Sinclair and her created a successful project, which ended when she left. They both contributed to the project, so a merge to the Sinclair page would make her more or less Sinclair's creation, which isn't accurate. She had her own presence, and just because she no longer performs doesn't make her any less important in the progression of a notable style (Argo, Sinclair, and later Poppy). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - But she's not notable and the policy makes it clear. We go by the sources and if the overwhelming majority of sources merely mention her name but are actually coverage about Sinclair or Poppy, then that's where the content should go. Putting the sourced information mainly concerning Sinclair or Poppy into their respective articles doesn't "make her more or less Sinclair's creation", it's simply what the sources say. Now, if you are going to insist that Mars Argo is notable, you're going to have to answer the question "What are the multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Mars Argo?" --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "Keep" editors, who at the very least seem to have made this a 'no consensus' result if not the obvious (to them) outright "Keep", see the references as adequate. May I point out that you were arguing, above, that Titanic Sinclair is not notable, and now you are advocating moving the Mars Argo information into the Titanic Sinclair page. Because of that alone, may I respectfully submit that your viewpoint in this one instance - the unique style created and represented by Sinclair, Argo, and later, Poppy - may be missing the notability of those three topics which others are seeing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sinclair's debatable notability is yet another red-herring here. My viewpoint is equally irrelevant, because the delete argument relies simply on the failure to show sources to meet WP:GNG. The closer will have to acknowledge that and close with "delete" as that's where policy lies. The crux of it is that you can't name more than one independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Mars Argo, can you? --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC, and the sources don't go beyond promotional articles, and aren't from significant news outlets. UnsungKing123 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With a recent turn of events, the Lawsuit has brought some relevance to the topic of mars argo and is reported on a reliable source. http://www.tmz.com/2018/04/17/youtube-legal-feud-titanic-sinclair-mars-argo-thatpoppy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.168.105 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Magnus

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

Low-level driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same (now blocked) user that do not meet the notability guidelines. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for racing drivers and coverage appears to be routine sports reporting which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 8 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marta García (racing driver)

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

Low-level driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

low level driver ? Seriously? She won the cik fia academy trophy (world championship) , so clueless you are..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.69.5 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same (now blocked) user that do not meet the notability guidelines. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DOesn't meet WP:NMOTORSPORTS or WP:GNG. The best article I can find on her is her name listed among karting drivers who are prospects to reach higher levels of motor sports and that is not enough to show WP notability. It fails the meet the GNG standards of significant independent coverage, and is both WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 8 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommee Profitt

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

Non-notable music producer. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes criteria 1 of WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". He has collaborated with NF in the composing of three very notable albums which peaked at #1, #7, and #22 on the Billboard albums chart. He has also won a notable Dove award. Atlantic306 (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's a collaborator for NF and some other artists however whether that work is notable isn't apparent from the refs. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets criterion 3 of WP:ARTIST, which states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. " This person collaborated on the writing and production of three albums that charted on Billboard charts, which are acceptable per WP:CHART. Contra Szzuk the work is notable because it charted. That's how we judge notability for recorded music. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health intervention

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

"Health intervention" refers to the activities of people involved in Health promotion. This topic belongs in that article, but there is no cited content here to keep. Daask (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Health promotion is advocacy. Health intervention is action to induce people to adopt health behavior, through such things as taxation or regulations. Butthe present article is extremely weak, and it needs major improvement. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I realize

The non-technical meaning of these terms may imply those meanings, but are you familiar with the field of health promotion? Daask (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: edited 09:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, health intervention is part of health promotion and the article is a WP:STUB with only one citation. Waddie96 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A ridiculous nomination as nom has stated no valid reason for deletion. First of all, because topic X is part of topic Y does not mean that topic X does not get its own article. Second, that there's no cited material in the article is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN. That being said, the subject of health intervention massively, overwhelmingly, satisfies the GNG. Just e.g. look at [[43]], [44], [45], and on and on and on and on. As for Waddie96's argument that this should be deleted because it's a stub, well, WP:SOFIXIT. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: I agree with the notion in the essay Deletion and deletionism where: "If you vote to "keep and cleanup", be prepared to clean up. I, for one, keep a close eye on articles where this seems to be the consensus, and I will take it back to AfD after a month or so if no one bothers to touch the article in that time. To vote for keep and cleanup and then not clean it up is just lying." So please, if you wish to keep the article then please be prepared to fix it yourself and add information from the numerous sources you have linked above (as per WP:SOFIXIT as well). The article has been a stub since its creation in 2009. There was no activity for 1 year until it was nominated AfD. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you take an interest in an article where there are available reliable sources that are not in the article it is as much your responsibility to add them to the article as anyone else and taking such an article back to AFD instead of fixing it yourself is poor practice as the article will almost certainly be kept on the basis of existing rs, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:192.160.216.52 has an ongoing SPI here accused of avoiding a topic ban on all deletion discussions. It might be appropriate to disregard his/her vote. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note -- It's an ongoing SPI without evidence that no one believes is accurate. It's reprehensible of you to cite this as a reason to ignore my "vote" (even though no one votes in AfDs). And your sharing your beliefs in various random essays is kind and interesting, but it's not relevant to the outcome of an AfD. AfDs are decided purely on the basis of WP policy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Waddie96: Being a stub, for any length of time, doesn't necessitate deletion. And "Keep and Clean up" only has any moral strength at requiring those who say that if their Keep vote was contingent on it being cleaned up. Some cases obviously fall into that, however many who say that do so on the grounds of thinking it is poor, but still Keep-worthy (just) as is. I say with mixed views on this specific article, so haven't yet come to a clear view. Nosebagbear (talk)

On which note, what on Earth does "encourage at-risk subjects to develop a viable theory of mind that supersedes authoritarian structures" mean? @98.154.255.130: Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it means "It'd be nice if there were more responsible, personally mature adults in the world"? The original reminds me of Dave Barry on downward tropism in pre-adolescents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per DGG rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unpersuaded by 192.160.216.52 (talk)'s examples and appeal to WP:ARTN. Intervention is a word widely used in a variety of disciplines to describe what they actually do. Note, for example, that Intervention (consulting) appropriately redirects to Organization development#OD interventions. Separating the page on a profession from the page on the activities of that profession seems highly unusual to me. We don't need a page on Activities of nurses in addition to Nursing. I'd propose merging, but there's just nothing here. Daask (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and Ozzie10aaaa: I realized the confusion might be related to bias in the lead of Health promotion toward public policy advocacy. I just wrote a new lead for that article that might help clarify this discussion. Daask (talk) 09:57, 16 April 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. – Joe (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Kennedy Road

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

News article (WP:NOTNEWS WP:UNDUE) by a Abahlali baseMjondolo, a fringe political group, that seems to be/have been using Wikipedia for self-promotion/propaganda (WP:COI) and as a gazette, in which events and persons connected to this minor organisation seem to be given undue weight. Unfortunately violence in South Africa is not notable in itself, and rioting was common during the time period in question. By the standards of South African township riots, it seems to have been rather tame, and it fails WP:Notability. Like other Abahlali articles, the formatting of the article is excellent for an article about a South African topic, and it appears to be well-sourced, but that should not impact on the decision to remove it, or merge it Park3r (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom says it appears to be well sourced and I agree. Szzuk (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Be serious. The sources already in the article are far, far more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Nom's theories on why, despite meeting GNG, this subject is not notable, are interesting, but they're not AfD-worthy reasoning. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 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)} 16:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Hamed Nastoh

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Despite his tragic death, this doesn't meet the notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Some 20 book hits with coverage. News coverage from 2000 through 2016. Seems this is a bullying illustrative example.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:SIGCOV, this particular tragedy is used by multiple books and RS as a sort of poster child for the tragic consequences of bullying.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 13:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Sloan

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

Unnotable songwriter. Almost all cites are to Qobuz, a music streaming website. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has contributed to major label albums such as Sony and Warner Brothers and has coverage in reliable sources such as Billboard here and an AllMusic bio Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough to indicate significance: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. An article citing unreliable sources has no bearing on the subject's notability. --Michig (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources found above - There's a ton more here (all of which I can't be arsed to paste), Easy Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've since done a lot of work to the article making it conform to our standards. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the excellent work done by Michig and Davey, this article should be kept. Z359q (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fusionex International

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

Non-notable company. SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, possible coi as article creator has few edits. Szzuk (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will McDonough (businessman)

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a couple of refs talking about him but it isn't enough, the article doesn't make a sufficient claim to notability. Szzuk (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Batterby

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

Non-notable business person with no coverage anywhere to be found. Award doesn't appear to be notable either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim to significance is that she won an award, the award itself doesn't convey notability. Refs are just about the award. Szzuk (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:28, 2 April 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)} 16:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Frank

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

WP:BLP of a film and television producer, referenced only to her own primary source profile on her own company's website. As always, producers do not get an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:CREATIVE just because the works they produced are listed; a producer has to be reliably sourceable as the subject of media coverage for an article to become earned, but none is being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more information to her article. She has produced six television shows, and her show The Eleventh Hour won the Canadian Screen Award for Best Dramatic Series in 2003 and 2005. It was also nominated for over 30 Gemini Awards, and has won in all major categories. I believe she passes WP:CREATIVE for "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Additionally, the awards demonstrate her work "has won significant critical attention." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article updated with refs and claim to notability. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 8 April 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. Sandstein 11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mimer SQL

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

Cannot find any independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. Lots of one-off mentions in books and one short article on macworld.com. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found database entries for few books/short publications about Mimer. I don´t have access to these, so can´t judge their quality (or independence): [55], [56], [57], [58] Pavlor (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The coverage in books and articles satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article makes insufficient claim of notability, the refs in the article are primary 404s, the refs supplied above are behind a paywall. Szzuk (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck own vote per comment below. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment, Notable for IANA registered port 1360 to be found in the /etc/services file of a significant number of *NIX computers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~Comment, article has been improved since original listing, lede has additional notbability claims and should not be be modified to simply amplify the amplify the claims, not all citations are primary and any 404's have been resolved via wayback, the comment about references being behind a paywall is minorly relevant and references behind a paywall are acceptable, WP:PAYWALL. The software is still having new being developed after 30 years which is somewhat impressive. To prevent any doubt I am confident to take this to WP:DRV if necessary and should that fail would request draftification for improvement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one extra relist to see if we can save this from NC. Grateful for views on improved notability through editing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SQL. The article looks like a cross between an advert and in-universe software development that has minimal encyclopedic value. Now I've thought about it again a merge/redirect to SQL wouldn't be a terrible idea, it is already mentioned there so I've struck my delete vote. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Oppose Merge (to SQL). See primarily reasons given in comments above (I've struck the keeps to comments to ensure not double voting). An in-universe (fictional) software development this is certainly not. I cannot see any significant merge to the high-importance SQL article that would not disrupt the latter, we must also remember Mimer SQL is a product and a company not a language (though it does have dialects) which might mean a forced fit unless say all products such as SQL-Server were treated similarly. Such a merge also would likely lead to a non-notability claim and removal of Miner-SQL from that article, so merge will be akin to a medium term delete. Quite frankly I can't plausibly see anything arising to make me change my position significantly so I think unfortunately this will have to head to a non-consensual close. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I'm also against merging this to SQL — that article should be about the language, and perhaps discussing dialects to some extent, but not about database management systems.

@Djm-leighpark: Without seeing the sources listed by Pavlor (talk · contribs), it's difficult to tell how substantial the coverage is. For instance, the first one is listed as a "book", but then has just 17 pages. So it's most likely a thesis rather than book. Those are considered reliable if they have appeared in an established peer-reviewed journal, which does not appear to be the case. And while it's possible they satisfy the letter of the notability guideline, I'd argue that if they're not accessible to current Wikipedia contributors, they don't satisfy the spirit, which is bringing a verifiable article to Wikipedia.

Also three out of four of those are written in 1984-1988 about the "MIMER database management system" developed at unversities. I also cannot find any reliable sources linking the "MIMER database management system" and the commercial "Mimer SQL" product, so if anything, this article should be about the university version.

As for the current state of the article, I see many primarily primary sources from mimer.com, then the short MacWorld/PCWorld article I mentioned, then an advertorial at CIOReview.com with Mimer CEO (they specialise in those), and two theses published by university press and not peer-reviewed journals. Really nothing that unambiguously passes the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:RS. So I stand by my nomination for now. -- intgr [talk] 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rather hoped someone else would add to that last comment first but no-one has. I've worked the Mimer SQL pages a bit more. WP:GNG and WP:RS are guidelines, but very good guidelines. WP:COMMONSENSE is saying with the wide range of references it is reasonable to ask 'What is Mimer SQL?' especially if some system was dumped in my lap as an IT person .. and I'd hope Wikipedia would give me some kind of clue. I am always concerned about being restrictions from developing content ... I appreciate the good faith suggestion Sticking to the 'University version' is in good faith but the content restriction means both the ongoing story cannot be explained well and the set of viable references reduces and then should there be a separate article for the commercial version and then should it be merged ... indeed the restriction would exclude an International Journal of Computer Science and Technology reference from June 2012 that from a journal that at least self claims to be peer reviewed. There is also the possibility argument the presence of Mimer on the /etc/services file of some Linux distributions also technically satisfies WP:GNG and WP:RS but even I have a life rather than having the scrutinisers going through that argument ... apart from that totally relying on it might set a bad precedent. Looks like a close of 'No Concensus' here would stop contributors especially me wasting effort.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:15, 25 April 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lockboxer

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

References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Website seems to be owned by a Chinese company now, so looks defunct anyway. Edwardx (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article can be recreated if the subject becomes notable enough to be the subject of dedicated articles in WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The two existing articles (2 other RS are deadlinks) get us toward a GNG since they detail the subject at the level of a dedicated article even though they are not dedicated articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Web site is gone - is this even a company any more? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by Lockboxer. There appears to have been a sequence of ventures: Lockboxer, Moveboxer, and most recently Salesboxer. (See the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moveboxer, which had been created by another WP:SPA.) Regarding Lockboxer, the August 2011 coverage is typical start-up coverage describing the proposition. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 9 April 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.