Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Petitions of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

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

Fails WP:GNG not a article. Wikipedia is not the place to preserve or type old letters and petitions. Wikisource is the right forum for this.As mentioned in talk by I really what is the need of this article. Wikipedia is not the place to preserve or type old letters and petitions. Wikisource is the right forum for this. I suggest, this need to be moved there Wikisource and removed from English Wikipedia.By user User:Kautuk1.There is a article about the subject a link of this letters is sufficient. This belongs to Wikisource. Girdlast888 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not currently !voting on the AfD, but @Girdlast888:...are you being sponsored by Wikisource per mention? ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article for Vinayak Damodar Savarkar there is a mercy petion section Nosebagbear the comment about Wikisource was first made by By user User:Kautuk1 which has been copied by Girdlast888 was made by here Clearly not notable for stand alone article fails WP:GNG.Further Wikisource also belongs to Wikimedia Foundation.122.178.248.112 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki per nom/NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- (or merge to bio-article, if there is anything worth merging). The petitions should be transwikified to WikiSource. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kanth

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

No evidence of any notability. A jobbing lyricist with no special claims. All refs are interviews or social media. Fails WP:GNG. Previously deleted as Krishna kanth Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The creator appears to have COI/UPE issues as well as per some outer-wiki evidence. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Has received minor coverage. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

585 AM

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most terrestrial broadcast stations are notable, and this is a set-index article for a common way to describe them. It's very incomplete, but other stations do exist; some are listed at List of European medium wave transmitters and there are others in Australia (such as ABC News (radio) in Perth). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep. If only one station in the world operates at this frequency and an article exists, then redirect to that station. If there are other stations operating on that frequency, keep and add redlinks for the other stations, which are automatically notable. Use the same principles as any other disambiguation page Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, all licensed radio stations are notable, and so are lists of them and disambiguation pages that list multiple licensed radio stations . Second, there are many other radio stations that broadcast on the frequency. See this list. Third, there are similar list articles for other broadcast frequencies, and AM 600 is a good example of a list of notable broadcasters in several different countries. Fourth, we should not have a rule that lists of AM radio stations operating at multiples of 10 kHz (the standard in the United States and Canada) are notable while those at other frequencies are not. Intentionally or not, this series of nominations targets non-North American stations and would reinforce the underrepresentation of the non-English-speaking world in the English Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You may want to review how Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias apply to this article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukwuegbu Anthony Chijioke

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

Non-notable activities / achievemnts; only 1 ref (possibly a dead link) Lopifalko (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found cause to remove its last remaining reference so it now has none. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I used two search engines (Bing and Google News) to get to find coverage, but found nothing aside a mention of being an alumni of Unilag. Although unsourced, I went through the article to find what could potentially make the subject remarkable, perhaps they could be a starting point for an encyclopedic addition if sources could be found. The following are the summary of the most significant part of his career from the info in the article:

He has stakes in First Bank of Nigeria, Intercontinental Bank, Aiico Insurance and Forte Oil plc - those are definitely minor stakes. Millions of people have stakes in a public liability comapany, it doesn't make them notable. Even me, I have stakes in more than ten financial institutions, and I am far from even being semi-notable.

CIPM essay winner: The award has not grown to confer automatic notability on individuals. Besides, its just a student award.

Best graduating student in his secondary school (without an article): per norm, best graduating students of the most notable secondary schools/high schools in the world, don't have automatic notability. Not to talk of a school without a wiki article.

Scoring 305 in Jamb - not the highest ever, even if it was, still not enough for auto notability. I am sure the person with the highest GRE/SAT score doent have auto notability based on that too.

Stock investment: there is nothing encyclopaedic about this section of the arrticle
Designing lagtutor: creating an IT solution for students in Unilag counts for nothing
Ghana trip: no one cares

My final words are, how did this article survive for so long in mainspace?HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a distinct failure to prove notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No functional sources at all (barely any of any variety at all). Even were his companies notable and possessing articles, his stakes wouldn't inherit him notability. Large and established but still with nothing of encyclopedic worth. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO Curdle (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1332 AM

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin Selvan (unfinished film)

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

As per this source, MGR's accident occured before he could start shooting, and according to Ponniyin Selvan author Kalki's son Rajendran, the film was not produced. Should this discussion end in my favour, the content can be transferred to M. G. Ramachandran's unrealized projects. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

558 AM

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

Non-notable radio frequency Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg R. Fishbone

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, believed to fail WP:GNG. Both of his books have been deleted at prior AfDs. Either delete or redirect to Superguy. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches turn up a mention in a Boston Globe article ( Making literature pay on the Internet: [City Edition] Carroll, Matt. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]28 July 1996) and a little WP:MILL local coverage of a Greg Fishbone who has been a selectman in Groton, Massachusetts. Not finding any indication of notability. Feel free to ping me to revisit if I have missed something here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh, now I remember those two book AfDs. He may well be a wonderful but undiscovered writer, I have no idea. what I do know is that I searched the dickens out of those two titles, and found nothing. This page and the pages on the two books were created in a fit of enthusiastic PROMO by a fan or someone close to the author. No notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1188 AM

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while stand alone lists for radio stations based on frequency are often kept, a list of a single item where additional items are unlikely to be added in the near future should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of questionably notable radio stations. Not enough for WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qutaibah al Majali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No significant coverage for this person, only minor mentions. Does not appear to be notable per WP:Notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree there is wide coverage in both Arab and English media and i added some resources now. He has many points that support his notability: first he is who recruited zarqawi! Second he was manager of Maktab al-Khidamat in jordan. Third is that two of his sons were with isis. I think he is notable in this regard--مصعب (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article mostly discusses why people he knows are notable or what they have been up to, not what the article's topic has done to be notable. Can't find good sourcing, and first two hits on google are to this WP article. Articles cited don't even mention him. Apparently fails WP:N ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited to notable people the subject knows or the organization he works for. The insignificant coverage that is left out there leads me to believe this is a clear-cut failure of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable delete Heshiv (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heshiv, TheGracefulSlick, and El cid, el campeador: i added some new resources showing notability (his activity was related to 2016 Al-Karak attack). What's your opinion now?--مصعب (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@مصعب: The article talks about Qutayba, his son. His father is still briefly mentioned and not discussed at length. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no. I added new 3 resources. There's 2 paragraphs talking about him and not just mentioned briefly--مصعب (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is a bit link-bombed, but there does seem to be significant, independent, in-depth coverage, such as here and here. The Arabic language version of the article, [1], provides a bit more detail, giving a good impression of the encyclopedic nature of the subject. I !vote weak because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be sure about this last point, if being a recruiter and unofficial spiritual leader of a group of unclear size is really very encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saichon Radomkit

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

Contested prod without rationale or improvement. No indication he, or his band, was notable. And searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. It is possible that non-English sources exist but I was unable to find any using Google Translate and the Thai Wikipedia didn't provide any either. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was lead vocal of one of the top band in Thailand 40 years ago. So online references will be hard to find. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band is notable, but whether his post-Innocent career is significant enough to warrant a standalone article seems more borderline. There's this 2015 interview in Naewna (dead link[2], but mirrored here), but I couldn't find much recent coverage that wasn't about the band's reunion concert. In any case, if we had an article for the band this could be redirected there. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am reluctant to say that he is totally non-notable as an individual performer because there may be Thai sources that I cannot find and/or translate. But here are some recent Thai media sources in English: [3], [4], [5] -- indicating that the gentleman is now a nostalgia performer representing his 80's band. He would be eligible for a redirect that band's article if there was one. Otherwise, we need Thai experts to track down reliable sources for his other work. He may be accomplished and respected in his country but we need reliable sources for verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have excluded the opinion from the paid editor. Also note that not disclosing your client is a TOU violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Rosenstein

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

Lots of sources, virtually none that speak to notability. The few that are reliable and independent do not have much at all in the way of detail. Pretty clearly a WP:GNG fail. Also fails WP:NCREATIVE, as we have no major awards, no seminal body of work, no major reviews of any of the works and no indication that he is considered a leader in his field, by anyone else besides himself and the editor he paid to write this. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. For all the references on this article I was unable to find any with GNG passing coverage. That said, it looks like his documentary, The Freedom to Marry is notable if anyone wants to go write that (not that it matters here as notability is not inherited). Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources are nice, but don't substantiate notability in this case. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 22:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously, fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Re: his notability, under WP:FILMMAKER, notability is defined as "3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; 4) The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention..." Unless there is a caveat to this guideline of which I'm unaware (and, if so, please educate me), this guideline confers notability to a creator by virtue of his role, and Rosenstein was the creator and producer of a significant and well-covered body of work.

- Press regarding his body of work: IndieWire: http://www.indiewire.com/2016/05/the-freedom-to-marry-exclusive-trailer-new-documentary-traces-history-of-the-marriage-equality-movement-288709/
- A review of the film 'Reality People' in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, which Rosenstein co-directed and co-producer: https://www.seattlepi.com/entertainment/tv/amp/Things-are-getting-wild-and-Woolery-on-the-Game-1116879.php
- A review of 'Waging a Living' in the New York Times. Rosenstein was a Co-Producer and Co-Director. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/arts/television/29gate.html
- A NY Times article noting that Rosenstein's film, 'The Gospel According to Mr Allen', won the Audience Award at the "the largest festival of its kind (i.e. documentary film festival) in North America" https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/04/10/movies/no-swelling-unseen-choruses-just-hard-truth-on-film.html
- A review in the LA Times of the film, 'A Tickle In the Heart', which Rosenstein produced: http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-06/entertainment/ca-468_1_popular-klezmer
- An article in the Washington Post about 'Boatlift', a short film of import, narrated by Tom Hanks, which Rosenstein created: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/new-film-recalls-massive-911-sea-evacuation/2011/09/01/gIQAt4KBuJ_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9978c28a0983
- An article about the documentary film 'Reality People', which was broadcast on AMC that Rosenstein played co-produced and co-director: http://old.post-gazette.com/tv/20030615tvweektv2.asp
- Articles in the NY Post and Pittsburgh Post Gazette about Eddie Rosenstein and an 11 part television series he created for the History Channel: https://nypost.com/2008/07/28/inside-sandhogs-nether-nether-land/ and http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-radio/2008/09/07/TV-preview-Sandhogs-digs-for-stories-under-Manhattan/stories/200809070258
- Ample press about 'The Freedom to Marry', Rosenstein's recent film:
- In addition to his own work, Jonathan Larson, the creator of 'Rent', based one of the main characters in large part on Rosenstein: http://www.playbill.com/article/audio-exclusive-inspiration-for-rents-mark-remembers-the-last-evening-of-jonathan-larsons-life and http://www.playbill.com/article/the-creation-of-rent-how-jonathan-larson-transformed-an-idea-into-a-groundbreaking-musical

- The collective body of work, his role in those works, and the coverage conveys notability. TK FoOC (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Note the above user is accepting compensation from someone who he has not disclosed for his edits related to the article that is being discussed here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Island (video game)

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

This article contains three reviews as references. Of those sources, two of them have a "Submit your game for review" option ([6] [7]). One of which has the following: Submitting your game to Edamame Reviews is a great way to reach a highly targeted audience of iOS and Android gamers and industry influencers who view our site multiple times each day. This quite obviously casts doubt on its reliability and independence of the subject. For these reasons I believe this doesn't satisfy WP:NGAME. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - firstly, disclosure, I am the AfC editor who accepted this article, so obviously there is a degree of bias with that. Hopefully I can make a suitable case despite that.

The article was certainly right on the boundary of getting through, but that was somewhat more because of verificability rather than straight-up notability. Notability for video games is always a nuisance (remember, WP:NGAME is an essay - a good one, but not a supplement. It's primarily GNG that governs it). This is compounded because judging the sources independence is a nuisance. It's not surprising that most game critic sites ask for them - they need a sufficient turnover to survive. Remember all news websites ask for news. This can create both bias (being positive so everyone submits) and non-bias (being independent so users actually come to the site).

My judgement was that Edamame was on the wrong side, while Gamezebo was on the right. I felt this was sufficient (with the Player.One review to prove it was verifiable but I also had a hunt elsewhere to cover notability. , Source 1, Source 2 (needs google translate) Source 3 are the best alternate sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, I agree with Nosebagbear that this is a somewhat borderline case. But, I think that the Player.One review in combination with the infogame.vn review establishes notability with respect to WP:GNG. Additionally I think that Game Zebo is also a reliable source for this article because in that very page you linked they say "Do not offer to pay for reviews. There is a big, fat line between editorial and advertising here at Gamezebo." I have no reason to believe that they are lying, especially given the tone of the rest of that page. Asking for and receiving game review copies in exchange for the possibility of a review is common practice in video game journalism and doesn't compromise the independence or reliability of the source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The VG/RS search engine (WP:VG/SE) , based on sources identified as reliable for video gaming topics, indicates that this topic probably does not meet the bar for notability, whatever sources have been provided above. Do all of the works provided above indicate that they meet the bar to be identified as reliable? I would guess not. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points here. Firstly, WP:VG/SE provides a useful list (thanks, I'll refer to it in future) of both inclusions and exclusions - sources 1, 2 and 3 don't appear on either. Meaning that even if you took the list as gospel, you'd still need to come to your own conclusion on each of them. Secondly, I don't need each of them to meet the bar - if we take gamezebo as given since it's on the list and seems reliable by personal inspections from several of us, that only requires one more source. There are 4 in the offing (not counting edamame) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list is mostly drawn from WP:VG/S--the search engine is just useful for using those sources trivially. Indeed, we need to come to a conclusion on the other three sources. As I said (because I have not investigated), I would guess the other three do not meet the reliability bar (based solely on their names--only one has widespread TLD [.com] and that one looks entirely domain specific, sites of which do not often indicate reliability or which indicate unreliability). Now, if Gamezebo is the only source, and the GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth (i.e., reviews or substantial previews), that bar is certainly not met, even including the above sources. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Izno: WP:VG/S explicitly states that "This [sources] list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination" so the fact that a source isn't on that list and doesn't have a standard TLD is enough to judge it unreliable? Player.One is a Newsweek Media Group organization with a professional editorial staff and no indication that it is unreliable as it uses the same editorial practices as the other branches of the Newsweek Group. It is a published, independent authority from its subjects which should be more than sufficiently reliable for the standards of WP:GNG. That in combination with gamezebo, which it seems you agree is a passable source, is sufficient for passing GNG. But just in case, I'll go over the sources.
      - Edamame is unreliable as it accepts money for publishing articles.
      - Pocket Gamer's content is a republished press release
      - Infogame.vn is in Vietnamese which doesn't change the fact that it is a reliable source. It has a professional editorial staff and their advertising policies don't indicate any issues that would interfere with the independence of their reviews.
      - AppCheaters appears to just be a one person blog-like operation
      - Player.One is reliable as discussed above
      - It appears we agree Gamewebo is reliable, as it has editorial oversight and independence
    - That's three reliable sources providing in depth, independent coverage. This is sufficient for passing GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like @Izno: says, it doesn't meet the WP:VG standard. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so - if Gamezebo, Player.One & Infogame aren't all on the WP:VG list then that is neither a positive or a negative ruling on them. How do those not on the list fail to meet the standard exactly? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep On the VG sources issues, unless we have previously discussed the source and determined it unreliable, not being on the list doesn't mean the source is not reliable; we'd have to evaluate those sources in more depth, but for purposes of an AFD discussion, these one offs can be considered on their own. On the specific game, there does seem to be some minimal coverage, one of the first Kongergate titles for mobile, and some of the mobile-based websites do discuss it. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage but there's enough to give this the benefit of doubt. --Masem (t) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If sources that have been determined to count as reliable sources give it significant coverage, then it meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage for this game to pass WP:GNG. We require significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. Sources mention the game, but that's hardly enough to show it's notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as technically having multiple reliable independent (somewhat) in-depth sources. The sources cited in the article: JayIsGames is good, if short; GameZebo is okay; Player.one looks good and seems like a good source without a more thorough examining; TouchArcade is basically a directory entry; AppCheaters doesn't look good, lacking usual reliability hallmarks; Pocket Gamer is a press release copy; not sure about InfoGame, but I don't see any reliability hallmarks (such as about or editorial page or something), language barrier notwithstanding. So that makes 2 decent GNG sources and possibly another plus some extra sourcing for content. I guess it's the utmost minimal bar for GNG, which it barely passes. If the developer ever gets an article, merge. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep along similar lines of Masem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penang Monorail

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

This proposed Monorail project has been perpetually placed on hold since 2008.^[1]^[2] To this day, it never got off the ground.^[3] As there are no plans to date to revive the project itself, this article is rendered obsolete and irrelevant. Vnonymous (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "EPU: Penang monorail, Porr shelved". Malaysiakini. 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
^ "Monorail promise in Penang". www.thesundaily.my. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
^ "Let us build LRT if you won't, Penang tells Putrajaya | Malay Mail". www.malaymail.com. Retrieved 2018-05-30.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the usual bar of inclusion, WP:GNG, additionally planned rail systems are usually kept if they pass GNG, and of course notability is not temporary. On top of that seeing as the project is still a part of the Penang Master Plan on Transportation from 2016 [8] and is still talked about in the press [9] and is still having political consequences [10] I think the article should be kept. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) from 2016 is not a continuation of the previous monorail project, and neither did the monorail project ended up being subsumed as part of the newer PTMP. The reasons are as follows.

The earlier monorail project consisted of two lines, both of which had different alignments when compared to the newer PTMP. For example, the earlier monorail plan included a line from Tanjung Tokong to the Penang International Airport via Air Itam. The PTMP diverges significantly from the original monorail route, proposing instead two monorail lines originating from George Town - one to Air Itam and another to Tanjung Tokong. Refer to the earlier monorail route map here and the PTMP monorail routes here.
The earlier monorail project had been mooted (and was subsequently put on hold for an indefinite amount of time) by the Malaysian federal government.^[1] On the other hand, the PTMP was drafted by the Penang state government.
This article also stated that the monorail project was tendered to Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad, whereas the PTMP will be implemented by SRS Consortium.^[2]

In fact, the assertion that the monorail project still carries political consequences does not hold much water here. The monorail project had been mooted by the Barisan Nasional-led federal government at the time. The news report which alluded to the political consequences actually quoted a Barisan Nasional (BN) election candidate. As we all know, BN was trounced in both the state and federal-level election last month. What is the impact of that BN candidate's statement then, if I may ask? How the monorail project still carries political consequences is also beyond me, when there has been an absence of notable sources which support this assertion. Vnonymous (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vnonymous, I was confused about the status of the monorail project and how it related to the current plan. Thanks for setting me straight. Delete per Vnonymous with no prejudice against recreating an article under this title if a different Penang Monorail ever actually happens. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the project is not alive and the subject is not notable. All we have are routine mentions in a few domestic papers. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I agree with Vnonymous on this issue. The proposed monorail has seen no progress in the past 10 years. With the overthrow of the BN government, it is very unlikely the monorail will see the light at the end of the tunnel for another five years (as the maximum tenure of the Malaysian government is five years). Semi-auto (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 D.C. United Women season

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

Proposing this alongside the other AfD for the same reasons. Team season that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Sources listed are standings, a roster, and a few post-season awards, which don't demonstrate WP:GNG for the season. Fails WP:NSEASONS as the league not listed under WP:FPL so team seasons within that league aren't assumed to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. See also: 2012 D.C. United Women season. Hmlarson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the SoccerWire reference is better, but I don't see how the other sources added address the WP:GNG concerns. Two of them are routine coverage (Boston.com and Washington Spirit sources, the latter of which is also WP:PRIMARY). The Washington Post article relegates this season to a footnote at the end of its article, so I don't see how that helps either. Jay eyem (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing important about this season, so no coverage. Giant Snowman 09:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources and probably NSEASONS as well. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS at all, the club didn't play in a fully-pro league. The first citation has one line about the club and doesn't address anything other than who they play their first game. The second citation addresses the club and not the season. One citation has a game report and the rest are WP:ROUTINE, after analysing all together this seems a clear failure for WP:GNG towards a season article. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the keep per WP:GNG and the merge target to 2011 D.C. United Season (we do similar things with aussie rules articles if I remember correctly with the men's and women's season on the same page). SportingFlyer talk 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say, due to the weird nature of how the ownership works and the intellectual property concerns in this particular situation, I particularly oppose a merge. Even though they use the name, it's not run by the same organization, and thus I don't think it should be merged into the 2011 D.C. United season. Jay eyem (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've already voted as the nominator, you don't get to vote again. Season notability is shown by ongoing coverage, as it's an event which takes place over a period of time. It's difficult to find non-routine articles about a sports season. And they do exist, and in a variety of different sources. [11] This is easily sourced, even if other teams may not be, and I maintain keeping or merging this information is proper. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was relisted for a more full discussion, and AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't really make a difference if I "vote again". If in-depth coverage exists of these team seasons that are not assumed to meet WP:NSEASONS by playing in a fully professional league, then this needs to be demonstrated. Thus far, it has not been demonstrated (especially not the source you just provided, announcing a new assistant coach does nothing to establish the notability of this season), and using synthesis to combine a bunch of non-notable routine coverage to create assumed notability to meet WP:GNG is absurd. Did you look at the eight different examples of precedent that I provided that were almost the exact same situation? And you haven't even addressed why the specific merging you are suggesting is improper due to the nature of the ownership and intellectual property issues involved. I have no problem merging it to "D.C. United Women", but they absolutely should not be merged with the relevant D.C. United season articles. Jay eyem (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment usually that means other users who have not seen the discussion get the right to add to the consensus. It does make a difference because it looks like you're trying to swing the discussion towards your delete vote. I have no idea what would constitute non-routine coverage for a season. Numerous secondary sources reported on both this season and the 2012 season. Also, your eight precedents (three are red links) do not actually create precedent for this article: if an WP:NSEASON article can pass WP:GNG, it should be kept, even if the season isn't fully professional: it does not override WP:GNG. None of the links you provided mention that. At the very least this needs to be redirected. I still think a merge is proper so we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, it is not a vote, so it is my arguments that are important rather than the "delete vote" or my "swing[ing] the discussion". And again, the precedent absolutely applies because its precisely the same situation as the others: None of the sources provided in this article offer significant and non-routine coverage, so it fails WP:GNG (how announcing an assistant coach is supposed to establish notability for this season is beyond me). And yes three are redlinks because they were PRODed and deleted precisely because they failed WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and they apply because they were team seasons for teams that played in a non-fully professional league, thus do not pass that assumption of notability, and had inadequate sourcing like this one. You, and others in this thread, still have not explained how these "numerous sources" qualify this season for WP:GNG or why your proposed merger is inappropriate. A merge or redirect to D.C. United Women is fine, a merge to 2011 D.C. United season absolutely is not. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to comment again, but not to !vote. Once again, please strike your bolded delete !vote. You are free to leave the rest of the comment but please don't WP:BADGER anyone. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, there are articles in reliable news publications which constitute continual professional coverage of the season. You keep saying WP:GNG isn't met, but I have no idea what you think the test for passing WP:GNG for a continuing event would be. Also, this is the first time I've ever seen an AfD nominator make an argument immediately following a relist. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, but it does go against norms, and I would please ask you to strike your vote. SportingFlyer talk 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose a merge with the DC United article per Jay eyem even if his double !voting is entirely inappropriate. The clubs have no connection. It's not an appropriate target. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I've stricken it and replaced it with a "comment". And for the record, my asking for clarification and pointing out that points are inadequate are not badgering, since I'm not demanding that anything be done (other than the need for in-depth coverage, which is entirely appropriate for an AfD, and maybe why the first proposed merge had an inappropriate target). Jay eyem (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 D.C. United Women season

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

PRODed the article, with the reason being "season that fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG", which was removed. Stated reason was "League was basically professional by this point, meets NSEASONS". I don't know if there's a separate consensus for this league but it isn't included in WP:FPL, so I'm not clear as to how/why this meets WP:NSEASONS. With the only citation listed being the standings from that season, WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per contested PROD. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040: - please don't just cite the prod, since everyone else doesn't have it immediately to hand and it makes it tricky to discuss it and use it to justify your !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. Hmlarson (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really sure how WP:GNG is satisfied from these sources. ~~Pretty much~~ Almost all of the new sources constitute WP:ROUTINE (specifically sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). The Sauerbrunn signing and the name change wouldn't be routine, but I don't see how they indicate notability of this season. Jay eyem (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For me, the fact a number of routine sources from major publications exist show that routine coverage of the season existed, thereby making it notable "by the sum of its parts." I'd make a different argument for almost every other type of article on Wikipedia, but a sports season shouldn't need multiple feature articles to be notable - continuous routine coverage should be fine. SportingFlyer talk 19:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I really do not understand this argument. WP:FOOTY already has an absurdly low bar regarding assumed notability, and the notion that you can string together multiple instances of routine coverage to create assumed notability sounds like original research and synthesis to me. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't quite meet GNG, with sources like this appearing positive but actually being upsettingly brief. If @Hmlarson: can find one or two more then I'll be happy to change my mind... Giant Snowman 09:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources provided, and probably NSEASONS too, per my de-PROD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should GNG apply? The seasons page basically fails WP:NSEASONS as club did not play in a fully-pro league. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the keep per WP:GNG, merge to 2012 D.C. United season. I just re-read WP:NSEASONS which doesn't preclude seasons for teams in not top professional leagues from having season articles. It just means they have to pass WP:GNG, whereas a top professional league would be presumed to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as with the other AfD, I particularly oppose merging due to the nuanced nature of the ownership and intellectual property concerns involved. The team only has a loose affiliation with the MLS franchise D.C. United, and does not belong in its season article. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are by and large not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. The one argument that does try to explain how it meets GNG is essentially a WP:SYNTH argument, i.e. that numerous instances of routine coverage somehow makes the subject inherently meet GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the nominator. You can't !vote again. You're free to comment, but please strike your second !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I stated in the other AfD, AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't make a difference if I "vote" twice since it is my arguments that make a difference. Also, the AfD was relisted, so its entirely appropriate to re-emphasize my points. I will make it more clear that I am the nominator, but I'm not striking the entire comment. Jay eyem (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to strike the whole comment, I'm just asking you to strike the bolded delete !vote as you already !voted. You are, of course, free to comment again, but not to !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I'll do so. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O Tannenbaum (They Might Be Giants song)

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

No notability claimed, or, article should be merged with main article for song pursuant to WP:NSONGS Richhoncho (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to O Tannenbaum is inappropriate as there are thousands of other recordings, many more notable than this. If this can't be kept or merged into They Might Be Giants discography, the article should be deleted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COVERSONG so merging is not an option and fails WP:GNG so deletion seems reasonable. I write all this without having done a search for sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable recording of a Christmas song, largely sourced to first party liner notes. Not really worth a redirect, considering it's not particularly a likely search term, between the lengthy disambiguation and the fact that it's not really their song at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect (to band's discography) Non-notable cover (which is why I removed from the article it had been inappropriately merged to). Question is whether whatever usable content can go in the band's discography article - lacking a search for further sources, I'll remain neutral on that. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information about the recording this song could be merged into They Might Be Giants In... Holidayland which includes this song, particularly the information referenced to the liner notes for that particular EP, but I wouldn't be opposed to an outright deletion. A redirect is definitely not an option because hardly anybody looking for "O Tannenbaum"" is going to be looking for the TMBG version – there are plenty more famous versions of the song than this one. Richard3120 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Van Damage

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No reliable sourcing for biographical content (or nearly anything else). No qualifying awards. No salvageable text in the article history. This abomination has somehow gone unnoticed for more than a decade, and has never been more than a pile of unsourced statements, BLP violations, and promotional junk. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of reliable sourcing causes a total failure of GNG. It is time that we start ridding Wikipedia of articles that lack reliable sourcing, which is probably well over 20% of our biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, With an AVN Award, a "well-known and significant industry award" the subject meets notability requirements as per WP:PORNBIO. The comments about lack of reliable sourcing are justified, however I am working on adding reliable sources or removing content that cannot be reliably verified. --John B123 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His sole AVN award is one for a scene so isn't sufficent to pass PORNBIO. it clearly states "Awards in scene-related ... are excluded from consideration." Finnegas (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the references you've added do essentially nothing to establish notability. Film databases (the majority of citations you've added) generally do nothing to establish notability (and for God's sake, you've added an IMDB cite supporting the subject's supposed birthname, an obviously unreliable source); the only substantive source you've added is a promotional interview for a business he worked for, not an independent source; and the rest are award-related citations for awards that don't count toward notability, a tactic that's been uniformly been rejected in prior deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Nothing to do with tactics, simply adding refs where there were previously "citation needed" tags in an attempt to improve the article. John B123 (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AVN is a valid reliable source. See the articles of Oscar winners, many are referenced only by sources connected to the film industry.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete and keep !votes above are equally without substance. Would anybody care to discuss the actual sourcing available?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because subject seems to passs WP:PORNBIO, which demands that the person has won a well-known and significant industry award. Subject has won the 1997 X-Rated Critics Organization Best Amateur Award for the series Filthy First Timers he directed. We have sources verifying that as well as other achievements in his chosen field of work. -The Gnome (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. 1. He has not won a well-known and significant industry award. He has won 2 scene related awards which are excluded from consideration. 2. He has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. 3. He has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. In fact, according to the citations on the page he has not been featured in any mainstream media. The Gnome, at least 3 films in the series Filthy First Timers were released in 1997. Each of those films had a different director. He only directed and appeared in 1 of those movies (Filthy First Timers 7) in that year. The series won the award, no individual is named in the award. That is hardly a significant award for Van Damage. Sources consist of primary sources (AVN), movie databases WP:UGC, and a passing mention in a promotional interview in an industry magazine (XBIZ). Van Damage does not meet WP:PORNBIO, and he does not go anywhere near meeting WP:GNG 8==8 Boneso (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Boneso's forensics are correct. The details for the series were unknown to me but are important. I withdraw my Keep suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:PORNBIO and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Harbinger

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

fails WP:BIO. The entity had a page created in 2010 and it was deleted for failing WP:BIO (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Harbinger ). 7 years later, in 2017, a SPA create the page again, without going through AfC. A Google News search shows 340 results, most of them are name drops and lack the depth of coverage WP:N requires. Also, the SPA who created this page also created the page for the guy's podcast too (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eggnog_slog ); so, yeah, it's pretty obvious that they're trying to self-promote on Wikipedia again. CerealKillerYum (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and WP:SALT. Wikipedia is not a place to promote things. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not sure I get the issue here. Subject is featured in prominent business magazines like Foundr, Success and Forbes. He's been featured on Tony Robbins' podcast and countless others. He is a staple in the world of "social engineering" and personal improvement. I get the issue with the main podcast page but the call to delete this page seems knee-jerk and not well substantiated. A lot of assumptions being made here about the intent. Vix sapientia 23:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment User:Vix sapientia. Please let us know if you have a conflict of interest when commenting (see WP:COI). Your profile says "I am also an avid consumer of "personal development"" and you also wrote the draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Jordan_Harbinger_Show . You might have a connection to the subject that you're not informing us about. It also looks like you're new on Wikipedia since you have 19 edits. You might want to sit down and read WP:BLP to understand the requirements for having a Wikipedia page for a living person. You'd also want to sit down and read WP:RS. For example, you mentioned that the subject was featured on the Tony Robbins podcast. WP:QUESTIONABLE states "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight." To give you an idea of what "fact checking" or "editorial oversight" is, consider an academic journal or a newspaper like the NY Times. The Tony Robbins Podcast? It might just be one individual giving his/her opinion with no editorial oversight or fact checking. So, yeah, please inform us of a COI and inform yourself of the guidelines. CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict. I'm obligated to disclose those and since I haven't, I don't have one. As my profile says, it's just something that interests me, and I've also worked on a few insurance related pages which is my area of expertise. I thought it might be interesting to try and add value to this community but so far, but instead of someone speaking with me and yes, acknowledging that I am new and might make a few missteps, I seem to get people like you talking down to me rather than trying to have a conversation. If tossing rude insults and "suggestions" around is how one gains experience in here, I'll leave it to you! Vix sapientia 19:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.157.146 (talk) [reply]

Probably the best for you and the Wikipedia community! CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cerealkilleryum's ad hominem attacks on a fellow editor are unwarranted and inappropriate. There is no seniority when it comes to AFD, and users with more edits do not automatically gain more authority and vice versa.Egaoblai (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to argue that this article wasn't created with promotional intent because I think there is a good chance that it was, especially considering how much the subject has relentlessly promoted themselves online. That said, this article is no where near G11 territory and I think that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article to exist and I am not about to say delete out of a sense of vindictiveness. That said, this interview, this business insider overview, this article in the Verge, and the fact that sites like business insider consider him an expert on relationships is are sufficient for passing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The text may be indeed highly promotional but this is why we have tags about that issue. The subject is notable according to the sources cited in the article: Forbes, Inc., Time, Business Insider, and so on, and they're all about the person and what he does. No matter what one thinks about the article's subject or about "dating lessons," we assess worthiness by specific criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled Nintendo games

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

Relies heavily on unreliable sources. Other entries are unsourced. Even if reliable sources could be obtained, the topic of cancelled games for "Nintendo" platforms is not a cohesive topic in and of itself. There are lists of canceled games for each individual system elsewhere on wiki. TarkusAB^talk 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept it needs a new title since Nintendo Games makes it sounds like we are taking about cancelled games that were going to be made by Nintendo not cancelled games that were going to be on one of their consoles.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel most of these sources are not as "unreliable" as the persion who proposed the nomination pretends. And if the website "NINTENDO64EVER" is though to be unreliable, it should be demostrated that they got some things wrong to show that. In the meantime, you can just put a require addional sources template next to each of these sources to point out the need of addictional verification. And Even if we exclude all the sources from NINTENDO64EVER, there are still plenty of reliable sources that this article uses, such as exerpts of magazines from the time period. The article could still be considerable long without all the content from the so-called "unreliable" sources. Therefore, I think this article should be kept. Emass100 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did add an external link at the bottom of the page. While the page it goes to is not in itself reliable, it contains details of magazine issues and pages that can be used as reliable sources to note the intended release of those games before cancellation. Deltasim (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources can always been found and placed and there are some existing ones currently. I agree that the title can be changed to something like "List of cancelled games on Nintendo systems". I disagree with putting all cancelled games together as the number would be enormous on one page. I also disagree with putting cancelled games on the list of games on the respective systems, because those lists contain officially released games and the cancelled games are more like extras. Ideally you would want the most notable cancelled games on the list such as "Super Mario 64 2". Deltasim (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we put the issue of sourcing aside, I don't think my other concern can be addressed. That is, the topic of "games cancelled on Nintendo systems" is not a topic discussed by journalists. I have seen articles that discuss games canceled for the 64DD, or games canceled for the Super Nintendo, but never seen an article that discusses games cancelled across Nintendo platforms all together. Therefore, we are creating a made-up topic. TarkusAB^talk 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be true that this topic has never been addressed so broadly, the topic of the games cancelled for each individual consoles certainly has. We could separate this article into into one article for every consoles listed here, and it would adress this issue. We could therefore see this article as a merged topics article. Emass100 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we could separate into separate articles for each console, but a merged topic article like this one currently fails WP:NOTESAL. TarkusAB^talk 03:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this fails WP:NOTESAL. This is an article made out of multiple lists, all of which pass WP:NOTESAL, grouped together because of their affinities. Emass100 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those consoles such as Virtual Boy would be pretty short considering the few cancellations. In addition to a list, there would have to lengthy sentences to explain the reasons for the cancellations and the efforts that were put into the games (which fit better in the individual game articles. I can't see going in this direction as making this one list a big improvement. Deltasim (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you all don't think this fails WP:NOTESAL, then can someone provide a reliable source where cancelled games for Nintendo platforms are "discussed as a group or set". There isn't one on the page. TarkusAB^talk 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However, needs work, namely in the addition of viable sources and removal of unsourced non-notable titles per WP:DIRECTORY. Not every single game has to be included. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this was just for actual Nintendo games, I would vote to keep in concept, but as this is for literally any game meant for a Nintendo console that got canceled, it's too large in scope. Why stop there? Where is our cancelled Sony and Microsoft games lists? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An individual page that have a list for cancelled Sony games or one for Sega games can be created. Consider this page as a sample for other future lists of cancelled games. If this Nintendo page works, the same could be applied to other major systems, provided that notability is established. Deltasim (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure there's a way to make an article out of this, I'm just unsure of how to rework the scope that makes sense. "Nintendo games" is confusing in definition and scope. But cancelled video games are frequently covered by reliable sources. I'm not sure how it'd make sense to split up. Might be possible just make a "List of canceled video games" list and have the inclusion criteria be games that have their own dedicated articles, so it'd be restricted to, let's say, major ones like Sonic Xtreme rather than everyone one of the 9 cancelled Sonic games. Or maybe just do it by dev/pub comapny? Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the confusion lies. You might think by "cancelled", those games were cancelled altogether such as "Sonic Xtreme" which never saw release on Sega Saturn or any Sega console to follow. The scope is for games that were intended for release on one or more Nintendo consoles/handhelds, but never made it to the particular platform(s). For example Aero The-Acrobat 2 was released on SNES but was cancelled for Game Boy Advance. It might qualify as a cancelled port/remake if you will. The list I put together includes a combination cancelled games that were never released and games with cancelled ports and remakes. Deltasim (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding was more that someone moved it to a new title after the AFD started, from List of cancelled Nintendo Games to List of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles, and didn't make note of it really here. The title is an improvement, its timing and implementation was just...not ideal. The new title gives it a clearer scope at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title makes all the difference, in my opinion. Gives it real scope rather than just an infodump. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note can someone move Lists of Nintendo games since it had the ssmme issue as the old title for this article?--69.157.253.30 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs work, but it satisfies the notability guidelines. Felicia (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rework so the scope is limited to only games Nintendo was developing and/or was going to publish. A list of every canceled game on a Nintendo platform regardless of developer or publisher is way too broad. JOE BRO 64 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the remaining games be listed in that case? Deltasim (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deltasim, Please strike one of your 'keep' votes. You are only allowed to vote once. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my vote. Look carefully and you'll see it is TheJoebro64's. Also check the edit history at 21:23, May 16, 2018‎ . I was not voting a second time, just asking a question about the scope. Deltasim (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is shit. I've just removed the unreliable sources (160 of them!). If you keep voters don't make any attempt to improve the sourcing on this article, I'm going to start culling it. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would complicate the scope of the list is listing games that were released in one region such as NA/USA but cancelled in PAL/EU for example. Personally I don't think this list really needs to expand to that scope because indicating the existence of the games on particular platforms is what the list is all about. Indicating the cancelled regions can be done easily on the individual platform lists (such as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games) with the correct references provided. Deltasim (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that if a game was released in some regions and not others it’s the release in those particular regions that was cancelled not the game itself.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There's a tag already on Wikipedia that helps to categorize which title was planned, cancelled or went unreleased for the NES. We all need to place the exact source as to which "X" game was planned or not. I suggest to delete this article and put to good use the Category:Cancelled Nintendo Entertainment System games tag. KGRAMR (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "tag" is only for the NES though. Some of these consoles don't have this tag system. Also: having this article around will help you make good use of the good use the Category:Cancelled Nintendo Entertainment System games tag because of the sources here. there is no harm keeping both, and they are not duplicates of each other. Emass100 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories do not provide references and don't establish notability. Some articles have no references to suggest that those games tagged cancelled games were ever planned or in development in the first place. This list compiles the references together, so you can be sure if a cancelled game is a hoax/rumor or for real. Deltasim (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Emass100:@Deltaism: You can both apply the tag and a reference talking about the cancelled port or even make an article about a particular cancelled NES game. That's what i tried to do with the List of cancelled Atari Jaguar games article that i single-handedly created, by adding all of the references that i could find but unfortunately i gave up on it once a Wikipedia user going by the name StraightDown came a started making that article a complete mess (That dude acts under the agenda of trolls that are moderators at AtariAge and Ross Sillifant/Lost Dragon/The Voice of Truth/Last Shogun/roguetrooper/Rogue Trooper/LD/Chryssalid/The Furthest Man From Home/themekon, a dude that will "correct" you in regards to unreleased games on all platforms, by self-referencing his own interviews and articles that he has posted from multiple websites to no end and most of the time posts comment without actual proof of what he's talking about). Now, i would love to help in finding stuff about unreleased NES games but sadly, due to that bad experience i had 2-3 months ago, i suggest to delete the article. I'm not doing this to be the bad guy so keep that in mind. KGRAMR (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KGRAMR: You might not consider this list a new experience to do you good for what the Atari one did, however if you have any suggestions on improving this Nintendo list I'm open to them. Deltasim (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltaism: I'll keep that in mind! KGRAMR (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not about cancelled Nintendo (as in the developer) video games, which to me would make some sense, but about games that at one point have been announced for on any Nintendo console. It also included multiplatform games, even if they were released on other platforms. It's largely unsourced. It's also confusing and vague. Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil does mention in the article that it was announced to be released for the GameCube, Area 51 however doesn't mention Nintendo. South Park was released for the Nintendo 64, but not for the Game Boy Color, so it is listed there. That's WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly but surely fixing those problems with at least one reliable source for each game. I'm narrowing the list down to games that actually did have a planned or coming release before cancellation and removing the ones that were rumoured to have cancelled releases. I'll check out the games you linked and see if they are official cancelled ports/games or not. Deltasim (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think one of the key problems here--TarkusAB's question to Deltasim about whether there are reliable sources that describe the subject as a set--has not been sufficiently addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the references that have been added are not news citations about any particular game's cancellation, but previews, announcements, or other notices just mentioning the game, proving it was in development or at least was an idea at some point. It's true that finding sources explicitly mentioning cancellation will be impossible for many games because most just become vaporware, but likewise, assuming cancellation becomes WP:OR because some may have been reworked into other games. And as mentioned above, many of these games were released on non-Nintendo platforms, again bringing into question which I still don't know the answer to: "Do we have sources that demonstrate the notability of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles as a group or set?"

From researching sources myself, I believe the answer to be no. I have seen many listicle articles titled "25 Games We'll Never Get to Play" or some variation that discuss games that were completely never released, but I have never seen articles that give weight or discuss any notability of those cancelled specifically for Nintendo platforms. Furthermore, I haven't identified any weight given in how cancelled games are reported so far as making any list short of "List of cancelled video games" would not be satisfactory, and that would be too large. We have CATs for all this: Category:Cancelled video games. TarkusAB^talk 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I think the only people who can establish notability for most if not all the cancelled games as a set are Nintendo themselves. The best I can do is find two or more cancelled games on a single article. The best success I've had so far is 6 cancelled Wii U games and 25 cancelled Nintendo 64 games. The problem with categories is that they can be tagged on any article. Several articles such as Tomato Adventure, Trap Gunner and Wario Land 4 have been tagged as Cancelled Game Boy Color games, but I have found no evidence or references that GBC versions of those games were ever planned. Another problem with categories is that it cannot be applied to cancelled games that do not have an article of their own such as "Titus Jr". Deltasim (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making a list doesn't solve the problem of folks mislabeling the games as canceled. In fact, half of the entries on this list are currently unsourced and nothing can stop editors from adding unsourced entries in the future, or entries with dubious or unreliable sources. As is always with Wikipedia, readers are responsible for conducting their own due diligence and reading the articles and checking sources themselves. Regarding games like Titus Jr., if it is not notable enough for its own article, we don't need a special list to ensure they are cataolgued. TarkusAB^talk 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lot of blue links on that list, so it aids in navigation. Also far more useful than a category since you can see the Cancellation date, Developer, Publisher, and which Nintendo console it was to be released on, all in one nice comparison list. Ample reliable sources to prove the information is correct here and in the linked articles. Dream Focus 19:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Someone please enlighten me? While I have played video games I am not a "gamer". "IF" we are to consider a very large list, possible because there are blue links that aid in navigation, that at most has 25 members (I think that is the most I have seen) then:

1. What would be looked for (or what audience) that would be helped with this list?
2. How do we justify members of a "group" if there are/is sources that confirm only 25? Would not the rest be synthesis and even OR when lacking sources.
3. Considering the above how can mix-and-matching games from separate consoles be in accordance to notability guidelines?
4. How is a list that includes games that someone was "developing and/or was going to publish" be verified by other than primary sources?
5. If this is a list that aids navigation but is about related items that share the same name (Nintendo) would this not be a set index article? Otr500 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abea

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

Article makes mention of award but no significant coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't meet WP:RS Edidiong (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is indeed "the oldest olive-oil maker" in Greece, it should have mentions aplenty at least in the Greek media. A search there, with the help of some tools, reveals almost nothing except routine mentions in lists, etc, showing essentially that the company exists and is active. It seems all we have are primary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable, historical industry of Crete. It is an important part of the industrial history of Crete and the urban development of Chania; see this article in the website of local daily of Chania, el:Χανιώτικα Νέα; also this (@ Crete News.gr). About the importance of the present day company in Crete -with a short glance in its history- see this article, published in the Greek mainstream daily Eλευθεροτυπία. ——Chalk19 (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, Chalk19, why not add those sources to the article? See below for more. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I love how those !voting keep because of historical or other reasons, and supplying sources here at AFD, would not be more beneficial to just supply those sources on the article, and then !voting "Keep" because of notability sources now on the article. I am stating this because I have seen several instances when "delete !votes" are advised to find sources and improve the article. It seems this would be a two way street. Otr500 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that, in some such cases, the editors who suggest Deletion are advised to WP:FIXIT. Which is actually the policy about "being bold" in Wikipedia editing, under a different title. In reality, the admonition to boldly improve an article loses currency when we're going through an AfD process. Improving the contested article and, if possible, stopping the process is rather up to those who are suggesting Keep. As to the much suffering WP:BEFORE, that's an obligation of the nominator; not of AfD participants. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as it stands now. Feel free to ping me if anyone adds some good references and I will happily look at it again. Ifnord (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reformed the article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is notable in Greek region, not sure about the authenticity of these resources on EN Wikipedia. Mia Watson (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an historic company. We've usually been much less restrictive here with just-founded embryonic firms. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the "oldest olive oil processing plant" in a given country is a tenuous but sufficient claim of significance in my mind. Sources are okay. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on account of subject's history and position in its field, though that is barely passably documented. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Randykitty (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lokendra Singh (journalist)

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

Self-promotional autobiography of a non-notable blogger and author. Listed awards do not appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per #A7 (unremarkable person) and #G11. Non-neutral autobiography with very few reliable sources. Page seems promotional in nature, and would probably need a full rewrite to avoid COI (that is, if there were even enough reliable sources to do so). Nanophosis (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Good catch, nominating for deletion. Clear case of PROMO, and in my opinion falls under G11 in the CSD criteria.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Strictly promotional stuff. Do not recycle. -The Gnome (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion per G11 per WikiDan61. The awards may cut by A7. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows. Consensus is that the book is notable, but the author not. Sandstein 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Leigh

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

I see no evidence that this person has coverage in reliable sources, by way of reviews or otherwise. Most of the sources in the article are either unreliable, questionably reliable or primary and not coverage. (a lot of blogs.) Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see wp:NAUTHOR - 2 reviews here [12]; [13]. Marthadandridge (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - I have listed some of her honors and distinctions in the article, and have documented two (favourable, as it happens) reviews of her work, there are more out there so her book is the notable topic. I see no evidence that nom has paid any attention to WP:BEFORE, or has understood that notability is measured by reality out there in the world, not by what is or is not already in the article. The sources that are there, by the way, include some blogs by staff of poetry magazines and other reliable institutions; these are perfectly satisfactory sources. This fine poet is well known in American poetry circles and has written and appeared in more than enough places to pass the GNG quite easily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well known in a circle doesn't make someone notable. I disagree about the blogs, particularly in the absence of coverage in other reliable sources. Someone's blogspot is totally meaningless, as is a website review that accepts submissions specifically from the writers. Please indicate which of the awards and honors are notable because a list of awards that aren't notable is meaningless. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, winning prizes and being made editor of different magazines indicates prominence in her field, just as those things would in a scientist or engineer or lawyer. Scientific notability, for instance, derives entirely from being cited by other scientists, i.e. exactly "in a circle", that is precisely how notability works in a profession; the same goes for notability in law, or medicine, so it isn't something special to poetry. Personal blogs would not be reliable sources, but that is just a smokescreen here: WP:RS is quite clear that institutional ones can be relied upon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide actual RS that support this because right now the sources breakdown like this:

So what of these is the hard and fast proof of notability as covered in reliable sources? I'll take your comparison to other professions and say that if this were an engineer, we'd require them to be widely cited or otherwise covered in verifiable sources which are also reliable. A bunch of bloggers writing about them wouldn't cut it. This is, at best an overly fluffed vanity piece. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally hesitate to respond to anyone arguing in that tone, and would ask that language like "a bunch of bloggers" be withdrawn as discourteous and inappropriate at AfD. As for "overfluffed vanity piece", that cannot be so as I'm not the poet and it doesn't look as if the article's creator is either: she started the article as part of the Women in Red initiative.

However, since the use that I and the article's creator have made of these sources is modest and straightforward, I will make an exception, assuming good faith and in the hope that we may resolve this matter rationally.

I've added another review, in the unchallengeably authoritative American Book Review. I think we have "multiple reliable sources" here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows and repurpose. The book has been reviewed numerous times, including in reliable sources such as American Book Review. The author has received little to no coverage in reliable sources beyond reviews of that one book whose reception already forms about 80% of the article's content. The book seems notable enough; the author doesn't. Huon (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work fine, the small amount of author bio then serving as brief context for the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the dissenting opinion again, but I'm not sure that I agree that the single review in that source qualifies the work or the author as being notable. And to address Chiswick's edit, again, Goodreads is not a reliable source for the same reason imdb and Wikipedia are not: it can be edited by anyone and your claim that there isn't any doubt is incorrect but it's also not a notable award. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "Chiswick Chap", thanks. Methinks thou dost protest too much. There are multiple reliable sources for the book. The statement that Leigh won the prize is multiply sourced also, so we needn't rely on GoodReads' word for it, though they are certainly correct on this simple matter of fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more who cares if she won a prize? I won my 5th grade spelling bee and several others after that as well as several photography prizes throughout high school and college. They all have names and there are published articles about them. None of them are notable. That was my point. And there are tons of sources, sure, but none which are in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Also kind of ironic you chide me for "protesting too much" all the while accusing me of basically being uncivil for calling a blogger a blogger. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely had no business messing with my username, for which you have not so far apologized. The prizes and magazines are exactly the ones that are significant in American poetry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Perhaps you can clarify, how did I "mess with your username"? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you divided it innocently. FYI, it's indivisible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salvage content for Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: it seems that TonyTheTiger is !voting for MOVE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (totally offtopic), i dont mind being referred to as "coola":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for authors is not about what they write but what others write about them. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Blogs about the author really don't count, awards which aren't of themselves notable also don't count. Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've more or less agreed it's a book article (to be renamed), and review blogs by poetry magazines and other poets certainly contribute to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs by individual poets most certainly do not contribute to notability, please see WP:RELIABLE. A review by an established magazine would, but its blog is questionable. Ifnord (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

umm, not quite correct Ifnord, having a look at WP:UGC under "Exceptions", we see "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", so if the poet is mega notable their blog would probably be ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blog of the "mega poet" is cited as a source simply to "support the claim that she edited Kartika Review." -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree, btw i wasnt saying any of the cited blogs are by a "mega poet". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows (remove the redirect), that is notable (ie. multiple reviews), and rewrite accordingly. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The quality of sourcing doesn't look much convincing and this needs more eyes.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantial evidence of independent notability. I find time for blogs but I have not time for blogs. [Blogs are] largely not acceptable [as sources], the book says. Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows." - when The Gnome regrets reading through the AfD.

Unsigned comment by Nosebagbear.

Rename (that you call merge) to Sparrows is clearly the sensible option. The only personal blog, and one that the article barely relies on, is from the Ottawa poet Michael Dennis, described by Open Book Ontario as "during the 1980s, easily the most published poet in Ottawa, with poems in several hundred magazines and journals." We are quite entitled to use authoritative opinion such as of well-known poets to comment on other poets. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - The article has scant information about the author, but rather seems to be constructed as a book. Go with that, and add a banner for WP:BOOKS — Maile (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Sweets and Snacks

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

fails WP:NORG, none of the coverage is significant Lyndaship (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - pending the first source couldn't reasonably be said to meet WP:SIGCOV, and none of the others get close. The same is true of a few other mentions available on a search. With WP:NCORP standards being so much higher, this article doesn't seem to satisfy them Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in [14] and [15] ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am on the fence about this, but I have a hunch that this is notable. There are not a lot of sweet shops in Chennai about which articles would be published in newspapers. Sri Krishna Sweets is one which I know is very popular due to its Mysorepak. It is quite possible that this one is popular as well. I want to thank Kvng for the sources, although personally I don't think they are enough to be counted as significant coverage. I will look for more sources.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some references
^[3] This is an article about how the business is now being split among the third generation of the family

^[4] This is a short review

^[5] (Already mentioned by Kvng above) Short review, but it is interesting that Grand Sweets is listed alongside Sri Krishna Sweets, which is quite famous.

^[6] There is a paragraph about a family feud and splitting the business. The article calls it the "best known sweet shop in Chennai"

^[7] This is an interesting reference to the shop in a book reviewed here. In general this is an indication of cultural significance.

I guess this is good enough for me for go for a keep.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Let us build LRT if you won't, Penang tells Putrajaya | Malay Mail". www.malaymail.com. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
^ "Penang LRT construction work to start in 2018". The Edge Markets. 2015-12-02. Retrieved 2018-06-02.
^ Niranjana Ramesh (19 January 2011). "A bitter-sweet conflict - Livemint". LiveMint. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
^ Muthalaly, Shonali (9 June 2011). "A lot's cooking here". The Hindu. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
^ Joseph, Raveena (17 October 2014). "Sugar, spice and all things nice". The Hindu.
^ "Family that holidays together, stays together - Times of India". The Times of India. 20 November 2010. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
^ Narayan, Shoba (18 December 2007). "Monsoon Diary: A Memoir with Recipes". Random House Publishing Group. p. 173.

Keep based on the sources above. I believe this shop is well known in Chennai and it merits an article.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending consideration from additional sources Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerically it's more than 2:1 for keep. Whether something is a BLP1E issue is a matter of judgement, so not something I can second-guess as closer. That would lead us to a "keep" closure. But many "keep" opinions do not even address the BLP1E concerns and argue with the merits of the person or the human interest nature of the story. These are not policy-based opinions and need to be given less weight. Even so, given the numbers I can't find a consensus for deletion here, and so we have to settle for no consensus. Sandstein 08:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mamoudou Gassama

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

I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Zero notability apart from the current, probably short-lived brouhaha related to his heroic rescue of a young boy. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable enough: this has been in the news by major news outlets around the world, the man received personal congratulatory meeting with the French President for his actions - moreso; he will be granted citizenship by the President, which French President very rarely grants (that is, a person being granted citizenship by the President as is in his power - very rare - as opposed to receiving citizenship by common juridical pattern). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Lassana Bathily merits an article, Mamoudou Gassama does too because of the numerous parallels Gnangbade (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangbade, perhaps you should click on the link for Bathily... --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duh :) Gnangbade (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the world-wide social media frenzy and the involvement of French President Emmanuel Macron tips the balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of WP:BLP1E and way WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps an article dedicated to the incident may be created in the near future if the incident stays in the news for more than one news cycle. Perhaps. -The Gnome (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an example: "You have become an example because millions have seen you" on social media, the president said." Some of the millions may look for more information. Wikipedia could be what they find - or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the amount of news coverage, this is sufficiently notable to justify encyclopedic coverage. As others have commented, this is not an ordinary occurance. Will it have a lasting effect? Probably not. But there is no requirement that events matter forever to be included in the encyclopedia. Not only does this matter today, as a rare occurance that has received unusually sustained coverage, but it may well also be relevant in future. For instance, this might have some impact on French immigration policy discussions. Regardless of whether or not that ends up happening though, the amount of discussion in the media earns the subject a brief article. Just to cover the WP:BLP1E claim, criterion 1 is met but 2 and 3 remain open for interpretation. The consensus here should be read as suggesting that the event is significant and the individual may remain reasonably high profile. Tamwin (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's just one incident, but it's an extraordinary incident and other people, as I did, may be looking for more information on this brave person. Expand the article, if anything. If it gets no visits in future years, it can always be deleted later. Right now all that will happen is somebody else will write another entry. Wikipedia should have an entry for such a notable human being. Quixote9 (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a extraordinary show of valour. In my opinion if Mohamed Atta can have a encyclopedic page. Why not someone who've shown incredible courage. Moreover, the notability is too strong on the news channels. I'm sure they'll cover this 22 yr for coming few years. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I like this guy, too, but that is not a policy-based argument. And I am happy to see so many editors with WP:CRYSTAL crystal balls in good working order, that will come in handy not only for predicting future coverage of this person and whether they "may" remain high profile. "If it gets no visits in future years, it can always be deleted later" must be about the weirdest "keep" argument that I've seen in many years of AfD participation. In fact, this bio meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Criterion 1: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", check, obviously. Criterion 2: "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", check: no indication whatsoever that this person will become a high profile individual. And there's no deadline. If this person in future becomes an influential personality, that is the moment to create an article. Criterion 3: "the event is not significant", check. Despite all our sympathies, the rescue of a single child is not a "significant event". With criterion 3, BLP1E gives an example: Reagan assassination attempt. It is extremely unlikely that we'll ever have an article on "boy dangling from balcony". In short, it seems to me that too many editors here let themselves be swayed by their sympathies for this heroic young man and by the current excitement, which according to my crystal ball most certainly will show to be ephemeral. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many illegal immigrants are offered a job and French citizenship, personally, by the President himself? (an annual estimate would suffice here, I think). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many kids get rescued by a "spiderman" per year? Answer: WP:BLP1E. --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all I know there might be hundreds. Only this one has been captured on camera, enjoyed viral social media circulation and led to a meeting with Emmanuel Macron? I think it's the personal notability, not the event notability, that's the issue here. But which is the "one" event - the rescue, or the viral video or the Presidential meeting, offer and award? The guidelines say that the notability of "the one event" is irrelevant, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says that a person may be notable if (s)he played an important role in a significant event. Hence, John Hinckley Jr. and Mohamed Atta are notable (and as you can see from those articles, coverage continued for decades, exactly because those events were very significant). Here, the event is not significant, not by a mile. It has already disappeared from most news websites or newspaper front pages that I am aware of and I'd be mightily surprised if there's any coverage (or interest) left 3 days from today. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a balanced encyclopedia will have room for at least as many heroes that become world famous as there are villains. Carol (Talk) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is perhaps not the strongest keep argument of all time (at least in my view articles should be considered on their own merits), it hardly reduces to WP:ILIKEIT. It is merely a claim that the presence of this article helps balance the encyclopedia. The basic point here is that those who want to keep the article think that this news item has received an unusual amount of attention, such that coverage is justified by public interests, and there are sufficient sources to make a good article. Those who want the article deleted think that this case isn't unusual enough to justify an exception. It's largely a matter of degree, and can be the subject of legitimate disagreement. Tamwin (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news. All the coverage of Gassama is mere news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move/Merge to new article on the event. The rescue event is certainly notable, given its very non-routine nature and the amount of international media attention its attracted. As the man is inseparable from that event, his bio should be moved/merged into an article about such. Either that, or keep things as they are now. There certainty is something notable here to work with, it just seems we can't agree on how Wikipedia should cover it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it has no direct bearing on this discussion, it is perhaps interesting to note that the article on the French Wikipedia has been deleted and SALTed. A request to restore the article has been rejected. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite interesting. I see we even already have a French Spiderman!! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and move as per Indy Beetle. This solution looks reasonable for both sides and no doubt this event will affect the migration debate. 79.189.206.17 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would be correct, but I sincerely doubt that this event will have any influence whatsoever on the migration debate. And the event itself is hardly notable either (WP:NOTNEWS). --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your crystal ball not in good working order, Randy? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Very well then, as Mamoudou's notability is challenged in both English and French with the latter being salted and it is too late for Wikinews by now has anyone here considered putting on alternative outlets as a temporary measure? We can always check back in a year or so to see if it has affected the migration debate. 79.189.206.17 (talk)

Keep. Definitely notable enough--Panam2014 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, as per WP:BLP1E: all three conditions appear to be met ("reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual"...), even though one could argue whether or not what he did is "significant". Azurfrog (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep due to the huge media coverage. An aspect that must be covered though on the page is how it raised serious questions about France's and in general Europe's treatment of migrants. For example The Independent article, the Washington Post article, The Guardian article or Eyewitness News opinion article. Also a suggestion as an alternative if this Mamoudou Gassama page will have to be deleted, that we add the video of the incident on the page List of viral videos that we have. werldwayd (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As things stand, this is just a WP:BLP1E which fails the principle of WP:NOTNEWS. The amount of coverage this has received in the short term is not, in and of itself, evidence that he's permanently or enduringly notable — it happens all the time that people get brief blips of media coverage for doing something that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. Our role here is not to simply and uncritically maintain a standalone BLP of every single person who happens to get his name into the news cycle for a few days anywhere in the world for any reason whatsoever — our job is to filter this stuff for whether it passes the ten-year test for enduring significance or not, but there's no evidence that he passes that test as of today. There are probably other pages, such as List of viral videos, where this could be mentioned, but it's not grounds for a standalone biography of him separately from that — as it stands today, this is more suitable for WikiNews than here. It's certainly possible that he might pull off something more enduringly notable in the future, so it can always be recreated in the future if and when that happens — maybe he manages to parlay his popularity into becoming the next President of France after Macron, weirder things have happened — but nothing that's true as of today is permanently notable enough to lift this out of BLP1E and NOTNEWS yet. "Media coverage exists" is not, in and of itself, an automatic exemption from also having to have a reason why the story has passed from currently newsy WP:RECENTISM into enduringly notable foreverism. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not looking very foreverly, is he. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Regrettably, the keep !votes doesn't look to be much well-founded in policies esp. in light of the later counter-arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sample of reasons offered above for Keep:

(1) Gassama received personal congratulations from the French president.

(2) French prez said to Gassama "You are now an article!"; no, sorry, my bad, he said "You're now an example!"

(3) The involvement of the French President tips the balance.

(4) A balanced encyclopedia must have room for at least as many heroes as villains!

(5) Wikipedia should have an entry for such a notable human being!

(6) Another hero also has an article.

(7) This was an extraordinary show of valour!

(8) There is something notable here to work with. It just seems we can't agree on how Wikipedia should cover it.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

-The Gnome (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Que?

Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Current BLP1E policy states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met...and the third point is 'If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." And this event is obviously significant and Gassama's role in that was sheer substantial. So BLP1E or NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. Dial911 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whether that event was significant or not is not for us to decide. Given that by now this has already completely disappeared from any reporting, the burden is on you to show with reliable sources that this is significant. In the absence of continued coverage, it would appear that all three criteria of BLP1E are more than met. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely not an absence of continued coverage. The guy was in the news as early as May 27 and he has been in the coverage till now for different reasons. News stories are coming out regularly on the subject. Some of these are here, published on June 3rd, 4th and 6th. What else does continued coverage mean?

There are many other news stories published in french media that talk about the subject. I think that should make this article survive this AfD. Maybe, after 10 years we can discuss BLP1E and continuous coverage again. Dial911 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the other way around. There's no deadline, so if after a few years there still is coverage of this minor event, that would be the moment to create an encyclopedic article. And while it's commendable that you went to the trouble of finding those references, it's easy to see that the initial torrent is drying up. So far, no evidence of continued coverage (which is difficult anyway, given that this event occurred less than 2 weeks ago: WP:TOOSOON). --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you to stay on Wikipedia's core policies only while gauging the merit of an article and not keep on citing essays like WP:TOOSOON or WP:DEADLINE for your excuse of deleting this article. As far as I know, this article satisfies all necessary policies of Wikipedia and there is no reason whatsoever to get this deleted now. Dial911 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP1E policy, on which Dial911 bases his whole "strong" argument, states also the following: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Please place emphasis on the term "persistent." As the policy goes on to provide a real-life example of what is notable under the policy and what is not, John Hinckley Jr has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. This means that we are still today, decades after the assassination attempt, talk and read and watch references about both the perpetrator and the event. Which means that Randykitty has the essence of the policy down pat while Dial911 mistakes the current brouhaha for everlasting notability. WP:TOOSOON, despite the arbitrary attempts to reject it, fully applies. -The Gnome (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You too place some emphasis on the term “persistent”. The notability of this event has been established already. See WP:NTEMP which says, Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. And as per it, the subject has garnered "significant coverage" in accordance with GNG. And for the sake of talking and reading and watching references in future, I would say if decades after no significant source talks about this person ever, we can go ahead and start an AfD then. There is no point in deleting this article now. Dial911 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess your next step will be to propose TOOSOON, NOTNEWS, and BLP1E for deletion, because we can do without them. To paraphrase: "there's no point in creating an article like this now". --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, things work on consensus on Wikipedia. And that is what we all are trying to reach here. As far as your argument about my next step is concerned, I won't mind if consensus warrants the deletion of any essay from Wikipedia. There is a reason why these essays are essays and not core content policies of Wikipedia. And there is no harm in changing/deleting/modifying even policies if the community wishes to do so. We in fact, have been changing/modifying/creating and deleting policies and procedures to get better. This project is a work in progress after all. I respect your nomination. Being an administrator yourself, you should try to focus on your actions and not anticipating what mine are gonna be. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble-bursting time: WP:BLP1E is not an essay, Dial911. It is extant and enforceable policy. If the consensus on some AfD is to keep instead of deleting an article about a contributor's loss of hair, rest assured that such a consensus would only reflect temporarily how "things work" in Wikipedia. As long as the policies about the biographies of living persons are in force, we shall and will go on enforcing them. The place to dispute them is not AfD proposals. You might want to use AfD outcomes as an argument against current policies, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, Didn’t you read what I said above? I know BLP1E is a policy and that is why I said even policies can change if consensus reaches. Dial911 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were not too clear when you wrote "There is a reason why these essays are essays and not core content policies of Wikipedia." This seemed to include WP:BLP1E. But thanks for the clarification. As far as this AfD is concerned, I repeat for clarity, WP:BLP1E is fully valid, extant, and enforceable policy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think those essays currently reflect consensus here. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I've said what needed to be said, let's see what the closing admin has to say. --Randykitty (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago

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

Promotional article, based on their own web site and local notices of funding and DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page name should be moved to Shirley Ryan AbilityLab or Ryan AbilityLab. The building is affiliated with Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children's Hospital, which have articles. The article has a lot of WP:RS. The hospital gets some national press such as this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YodogawaKamlyn (talk • contribs) 05:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I do not see a good refutation of the arguments advanced by the nominator.Notability isn't inherited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. Although there are primary sources, they can be used in this context per WP:RS because the majority of the article is based on otherwise secondary sources. In addition, I've updated the page and renamed it to Shirley Ryan AbilityLab per the name change that occurred in 2017. Nanophosis (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a shade promotional, but pops up in general media coverage reasonably often. Basie (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs to be improved, but the subject passes GNG. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngoubou

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

The article is clearly non-notable (there's no exemption for fringe labels like "cryptids") and profringe, with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. While there was nothing on the talk page about a previous nomination, the page history shows that it was part of a deletion discussion for Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu which closed with a result of no consensus. A redirect to List of cryptids is unsupported, since that's a list of mystery animals notable enough to have a page, and provides no information to someone looking for "Ngoubou." Possibly a redirect to Mokele-mbembe, since even within unreliable fringe sources that's the context it usually comes up in, but a delete would be cleaner. --tronvillain (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would a redirect to Ceratopsia be a possibility here? I am a little hesitant about suggesting this, as this is clearly a case of a "cryptid" species. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, it seems to be a recent (c. 2000) creationist idea, speculated by them to be similar to the also fringe Emela-ntouka in Roy Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe, and then further speculated to be similar to a (not especially similar) report in Heuvelman's On the Track of Unknown Animals: "24 ft. in length with a long pointed snout adorned with tusks like horns and a short horn above the nostrils. The front feet were like those of a horse and the hind hoofs were cloven. There was a scaly hump on the monster's shoulders." It's multiple levels of non-notable fringe, but maybe a redirect to Ceratopsia would work? --tronvillain (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of a score of articles that somehow made it out of the deep fringe swamp on to the site without demonstrating any level of significant notability, often with the goal of promoting fringe. The link between cryptozoology and Young Earth creationism in these areas is strong. While that in itself is an interesting topic to write about, but without secondary discussion, articles like these fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sound references, this could be a complete hoax - nevermind failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Makatsaria

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

Contested PROD, still fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Playing in junior grand slams does not make a tennis player notable. Iffy★Chat -- 12:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete the article then if appropriate. But she will not be a junior anymore in just 1 month. Is it worth deleting it now, just to have it be reinstated shortly afterwards? Airgum (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -The fact that she won't be a junior soon is irrelevant to the issue, which is that she doesn't meet the notability policies as linked above. The last sentence from the nominator is likely meant to give an example of why she isn't notable. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so we shouldn't retain the article just in case she goes on to have a notable career. If the notability guidelines are met sometime in the future, the article can be reinstated. Nanophosis (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable tennis player. And becoming a professional tennis player doesn't just warrant notability. There are like 5,000 professional tennis players, with a majority never even heard of. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See above, I agree with nom that the subject fails GNG, and being included in lists of tennis players cannot count towards notability per WP:RS. Nanophosis (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NTENNIS. ITF lists some fourteen thousand professional tennis players in the world. - The Gnome (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the day is soon coming when we will be overwhelmed by 21st-century born people getting unneeded biographies. With Makatsaria we are having the end of our 20th-century born ones, but being a junior tennis player just does not cut it for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar (director)

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

Non-notable director/producer of some non-notable films with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film maker, fails GNG. FITINDIA 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:DIRECTOR This Director has create a movie on Muzaffarnagar riots. Which is Very controversial and attract many news sources. You can get the result by this. [16]. Alternatively this is neither a promotion nor a harmfull article. this article only appreciate the hard work of a director, Nothing else.Kaushikdjay (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kaushikdjay (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Kaushikdjay: As the creator of the article it is reasonable that you think it should be kept, but you'll need to provide some sources that establish notability. Out of Muzaffarnagar: The Burning Love none of his films is notable so director on one notable film is not enough unless the individual receives a major award or in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. also, as a marketing guy you need to disclose your relationship to the topic in question per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 06:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: As you have stated above that his first movie is notable and I have another movie named as Pakda Pakdi Which is produced by Harish kumar and Starred Ashok Saraf. This movie is also notable in marathi cinema but there are not online presence of marathi cinema on web. But It is a big in marathi^[1]^[2]^[3] and I am not the marketing guy. I wants to helps wikipedia so that I am putting the pages from imdb and after a research write it here. Now I am trying to create article about khushali kumar. you can help me with this. I am new here but that doesn't mean I can't defend myself. Kaushikdjay (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Kaushikdjay: The sources you provided above are not reliable except TOI which is a passing mention and is insufficient to support notability also, are you sure? because there is some off-wiki evidence that proves you are the same person who is into marketing business. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Superb rebuttals by GSS......Why was this relisted?~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNP, as subject's works also do not meet WP:NN. Unfortunately, though effort has been put into writing the article, this does not change the fact that the article is not notable enough. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ault

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

I think it would be preferable to go through the WP:AfD process to discuss this article.

It was created September 7, 2005 and this gives an opportunity for the editors who have worked on the article to review it and add to the discussion.
There are "About 756,000 results" in a Google search for "Mike Ault" (admittedly many of them about people of the same name who are not the subject of this article.)
While of course AfD is not for cleanup, perhaps this AfD might yield some good outcomes. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the current buzzword for this is "teachable events". Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete. This guy (narrowly) fails the requirements for WP:AUTHOR. Although he clearly knows a lot about Oracle, I don't think this fulfills the requirements. He definitely isn't highly cited (RQ 1): a search of Jstor for "Mike Ault" and "Mike Ault Oracle" reveals little (the one paper that his name appears on is clearly not him, being a journal of political science). GScholar has more results, but they're all guides written by him rather than academic papers, and he isn't cited by anyone. There's no suggestion that he came up with any new concepts or theories (RQ 2) or gained fame from his work (RQ 4). A very shaky case could be made for the Oracle series being a significant collection of works (RQ 3), but I question its real significance. Delete, but reluctantly so.FirefoxLSD (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly Fails WP:AUTHOR. No strong references. Farahpoems (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original speedy delete tagger. Non-notable author. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thakurnagar - Gaighata Road

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

Unreferenced, non-notable road, fails WP:GEOROAD WWGB (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thakurnagar, as I'm looking at the history of the user's contributions. I understand the user "reverted" the initial PROD but I'm assuming good faith on the edit and WP:DONTBITE. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom, non-notable road. No reason to redirect, there is no mention of this road in Thakurnagar. MB 18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not a notable road. It is not a state/national highway and has no other significance. I cannot find any sources which describe this road's significance. I also agree that there is no reason to redirect it.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. A redirect is inappropriate, as there is no target article that discusses this road and the title is an unlikely search term. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naazuk Lochan

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Playing a non-extra significant roles in notable TV shows indicates importance/significance.--Gishaforza (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gishaforza (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Gishaforza: First, you must add your own comment and explain how? secondly, you need to provide reliable sources to support that the subject has played a significant role in the TV shows listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Naazuk has played important roles in three big TRP rating TV serials- Naagin (TV series) (season2),Brahmarakshas (TV series) and now currently in Jiji Maa. In IMDB , also she is given prominent mention

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9885667/

--Gishaforza (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gishaforza: IMDb is a user generated website and is not considered a reliable source. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Only minor roles so far, and no significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON at best. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. WP:NACTOR states: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This person hasn't. There is therefore no validity in SoWhy's declining of the CSD. But SoWhy declines a lot of CSDs.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (pinged) If playing significant roles in multiple notable productions is sufficient for notability, shouldn't playing any non-extra role in multiple such productions be sufficient to establish significance? After all, it is a lower standard than notability and what "significant" means is oftentimes only clear after discussion. That said, I don't claim this subject is indeed notable. Just significant enough to warrant further discussion. So yeah, delete is the correct outcome since he fails all possible notability guidelines (at this time). Regards So Why 20:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy, the key word is 'significant', but there is a similar word in German that might not have exactly the same meaning. I would understand your confusion. There are no claims of significance in the article. I read it 6 times. It didn't take long. All I discovered is that the one sources is a malware trojan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "significant" and the German word "signifikant" are commonly listed as meaning the same, e.g. [17]. There is no confusion. The standard of A7 is, despite a fraction of editors ignoring it, explicitly lower than notability and so it would be incorrect to apply notability criteria to A7. Fun fact: My decline rate is 11.5% of all speedy requests I handled (1405 declines compared to 10,746 deletions). Just saying. Regards So Why 07:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ackley Bridge. Boldly closing - The nominator is an IP who originally kept merging - I kept reverting on the basis of "the episode list will need episode summaries and as such over time will become long" however I've only just realised the summaries are on their respective series articles so a seperate article isn't needed and as such a merge here does make sense, It's been a long morning put it that way!, Merged. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ackley Bridge episodes

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

This tv show has just 7 episodes and this list would fit just fine in the main Ackley Bridge article. Episode summaries are already split across Ackley Bridge (series 1) and Ackley Bridge (series 2). I have tried to move this summary list into the main article and redirect but have been reverted by the same user User:Grangehilllover. Eastendersgeek (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the main article with this list incorporated. Eastendersgeek (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does an articles length mean deletion? Seriously, which reason does it fall under on the deletion policy. Grangehilllover (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore the list in Ackley Bridge. Polyamorph (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vinante

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

Insufficient coverage in press and secondary sources of this restaurant singer and political worker: a Daily Mail article which only mentions him as providing a selfie with Philip May in a photo caption, a Telegraph article which doesn't mention him by name at all (just a photo of "a guitarist and singer entertain customers"), a minor summary article in the Italian press about the inaugural meeting of his political group. Other Italian sources given are dead links or do not appear to mention him.

Article was written by User:Joan Bozoky, who shares a name with the CEO of the Green Room Club, of which Vinante is a director. From the talk page, the notability issue has been rejected by Bozoky in the past. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 14:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabini-Borja, Dinagat Islands

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

This barangay (village) in the Dinagat Islands does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the article are Google maps and Philippines Places which do not provide much information. Other web sources just mention the baarangay by name. Jollibinay (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does coverage exist in the other local languages? 165.91.13.29 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE as an officially recognised populated place. Existence verified in multiple sources [18][19][20][21][22][23]. SpinningSpark 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark It's not about its existence, but rather its notability. It appears on maps and censuses, but that's it.Jollibinay (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...which means that at the very least we could expand the page by adding population information and map co-ordinates. We also have a source on flood risk. From WP:GEOLAND; "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." From WP:PRESERVE; "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." So in guidelines and policy we should not delete this page. At the very worst it would be merge and redirect, but I would not support even that, at least not until we have heard from someone with access to a regional newspaper archive. There are quitee a few results coming up on HighBeam that look promising from the snippets but only the opening para is accessible e.g. bridge opening mining storm flooding. SpinningSpark 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE. It clearly exists, it's clearly a legally recognized populated place. In this case, that's enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, as a Barangay, meets criteria. MB 17:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and all other barangay pages of Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands to the town's article. All of these pages contain no cited information besides stating the barangay being part of Cagdianao. GEOLAND is just a guideline and just states that legally recognized places are typically notable (not always).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave three links to Highbeam results that go beyond a GEOLAND argument, and there are more available. Have you considered those? SpinningSpark 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve — according to page 21 of this government document, the barangay had 812 people in 2010 and 912 people in 2015. It would seem to be large enough to warrant at least a short article. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of BNK48 members. Sandstein 07:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pimrapat Phadungwatanachok

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

Delete (or Redirect to List of BNK48 members) as the subject of the article does not likely pass WP:BIO/WP:MUSICBIO. --Miwako Sato (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WithoonS: Please do not delete this page, I created it to collect her personal information and actings for her fans which the article "List of BNK48 members" do not have it. This idol girl group is difference with general band, the most fans focus on individual member to follow and not the whole band. So, I think this article is useful for the fans, thank you and kindly consider to accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WithoonS (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the coverage is decent. Dailynews [24], Judprakai section of Krungthep Thurakij [25], Praew [26], Campus Star [27], True Plookpanya [28], The Standard [29] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BNK48 or List of BNK48 members. Unless she has achieved significant overage for activities outside of the band (joined a different band, has solo releases, independent work in other media, etc.), then band members are usually directed per WP:NBAND - (members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo release). The article needs to demonstrate that she has achieve things outside of the band to warrant a standalone article. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angel CoFund

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like non-notable corporate spam. Sourcing is WP:SPIP and fails the new and improved WP:NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being government-backed, it certainly isn't what I'd consider run of the mill. Scholarly articles [1] [2] discuss the fund at length; easy to miss since they fully spell out "Angel Co-Investment Fund," but given the descriptions inline it is the same fund. Pegnawl (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: & @Misterpottery: in light of the scholarly articles I tracked down above, will you keep your votes as delete or change? Happy to update the entry to include these refs, but would rather not put in the effort if a deletion is pending. Thank you. Pegnawl (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to keep corporate spam based on an scholarly source that has a total of 7 citations. In other words, the academic community doesn’t think that highly of your source. My vote remains to delete with fire. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only provided the first two scholarly articles I found, with 7 and 17 citations respectively. I'm very interested in your metrics for deducing that the academic community doesn't care about these papers; there were others, but you're right, # of citations is lacking, as compared to... Well, that's the thing. What is the baseline for this field? A super generic search on the same topic doesn't show a plethora of citations for any of the results. My go-to is to judge # of citations by release date, authors (in this case appears to be a power couple from Middlesex), journal reputability, and the reputability of author(s)/journal(s) the citations are coming from.

Appreciate your thoughts if you care to expand. Pegnawl (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven citations for a paper is very low. Here is a semi-randomly selected paper from notable academics in business. Google lists 183 citations. 7 and 17 citations is pretty low in most disciplines. Also, to be frank, while this is clear that it doesn't meet NCORP, I don't really care if it does: it is still a WP:NOTSPAM fail which makes passing WP:N impossible, regardless of the sourcing. This article also just happens to have crap sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for humoring me! While I will note that the paper you provided as example has over 30 years on the others, I do understand your perspective, and am appreciative of the effort. Pegnawl (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; the sources offered at this AfD are not convincing. Being government-back is not a guarantee of notability, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @K.e.coffman: Pardon my slowness, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the rejection of the scholarly refs. Per WP:NCORP, listed under "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" is "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization." Can I ask, in what way are the scholarly articles cited above not convincing? Same/similar thought process to TonyBallioni? Thank you. Pegnawl (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4. Recreation of a page deleted by a deletion discussion (twice, this is the third nom) SpinningSpark 22:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria Supermarket

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

Not seeing how an Ontario supermarket chain with 5 outlets, founded in 2004, can pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episode_1_Ventures

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND Misterpottery (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Just a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all impressed with the sourcing, routine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the article text is about the previous activities of people involved in this fund, from which it does not gain notability. Nor do routine announcements of start-ups gaining funding from sources including this fund show more than a firm going about its business. I am not seeing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH; as a vehicle for public and private money, the mention at Enterprise Capital Fund is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others before me. Not too much new insight that I'm able to add here. Strikerforce^Talk 15:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete abundance of sources but none strong enough to keep it. Dial911 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Equity Partners

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND Misterpottery (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sansaar Sukher Hoy Romonir Guney

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

No reliable sources found even in Bengali language....Delete — F R ⁺ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. Article moved to draft space at Draft:Beyond the Earth foundation SpinningSpark 22:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Earth foundation

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

Not notable organization founded in 2016. No RS in article. A Google News search for "Beyond the Earth foundation" returns no results. Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, non-notable organization. No sources to be found besides primary sources. Nanophosis (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a starting article which we are presently adding to while the public elements of the project are entering final stages of production before official press launches live. An under-construction website [[30]] is presently accessible detailing foundation goals. As well as established social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vimeo [presently empty]) we also operate a Researchgate scholar account which so far details the 'Preliminary Specifciations' guide for the intended archival elements alongside a pre-print of a catalogue documenting the cultural signature of Earth i.e. transmissions and other objects in space - content which is the subject of other Wikipedia articles. RE: 2016, the foundation was initially founded as a society amongst a few dedicated researchers but we have since decided to officially apply for foundation status with OSCR registry pending, Bylaw publication to subsequently follow. We are also part of an informal, communal network of similar entities (some of which have have been listed below in the 'See Also' column) with partnerships pending on additional collaborations. Please let me know if you have any additional queries and I'll endeavour to respond - always at hand to help. User: Quastie 13:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quastie (talk • contribs)

Comment - hi, Quastie an interesting article to be sure, but unfortunately there are a number of things in your answer here that are going to end up being flattened.

Articles in the mainspace are expected to meet the minimum requirements from c.1 hour after creation. Notability in particular should exist now or have the article deleted

The press launches, under-construction website, social media channels, vimeo and internally produced journals are all unsuitable sources for wikipedia - they are all both original research (not permitted for anything other than very basic details) and non-independent. They specifically cannot support notability, which requires secondary sources.

Working with a group of similar entities also won't provide anything that combats the nominator's argument (unless there were some sources about the overall group and you changed to make the article about the group as a whole).

Since all the actual functional changes came from you, I suspect you could probably have the article draftified, where it would be removed from the main article space and be returned to a proto-article which you can edit until it has sufficient notability/suitable sources.

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarity and the comments Nosebagbear. I'll transfer this document to My Sandbox to be saved as a draft for further review under the above criteria with later publication when there are secondary, non-OR sources available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quastie (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Salvi

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

Not notable mid-level manager at a small company. BEFORE fails to turn-up additional sources. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow this is one of the most lacking in sources articles I've ever seen. One source is primary and non-independent, one source is inacccessible and the other is irrelevant to proving notability. My BEFORE check had him making a single quote. No chance of passing either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sources do not establish notability. Fails GNG and BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like CV of Anil Salvi (Promotional)must be delete.Heshiv (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangwego alphabet

AfDs for this article:

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

The notability is really unclear and not demonstrated. Holding lectures is certainly not a sign of notability, by itself. One quote from a government minister is also not a sign of notability. The claim about "slowly gaining a following" is unreferenced. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malawi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed in detail in "The Politics of Malawi’s Alphabet" in Speak. In 2012 there was an ISO proposal to encode the script in unicode. Briefly mentioned in the book African Literacies: Ideologies, Scripts, Education, also here and here. SpinningSpark 22:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite borderline:
- The only non-trivial coverage is in the Speak article, but is it a notable reliable source?
- The Unicode proposal doesn't include published examples of use (page 8, 6b).
- The other sources only mention Mwangwego trivially.
The general notability guideline says that multiple sources are generally expected, even if not required, and suggests including topics that are only mentioned in one source in another article. I'd be OK with having this mentioned in Languages of Malawi (currently redirects to Demographics) and in Chewa language, but I'm reluctant about the need for a separate article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to merge and redirect this to another article you could have done it quietly and (probably) uncontroversially without bringing it to the circus of AfD. By bringing it here, you are declaring that you don't think the information should be on Wikipedia in any form. SpinningSpark 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" or "Redirect" (as well as "Keep") are possible and reasonable outcomes of an AfD discussion.

An AfD proposer can change their mind, too. For example, when I started this AfD, I wasn't aware of the Unicode proposal and I thought about complete deletion. The new info makes me lean more toward "merge and redirect" than "delete". But not to keeping in its current form. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Spinningspark but I think the article can be greatly improved. Perhaps the corresponding Portuguese and Dutch versions might be useful. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No reason was given for questioning the reliability of the Speak magazine article. This is the organ of Journalists for Human Rights and if any profession should know about fact-checking, it is journalists. The JHR site also contains this posting which may count as RS under WP:NEWSBLOG or under WP:SPS (because the poster was the senior writer for the Encyclopedia of Manitoba). Other sources that discuss this subject in reasonable depth include Omniglot (writing systems and languages encyclopedia), Scriptsource, Kumatoo, and MEMIM Encyclopedia. SpinningSpark 10:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) NZFC^(talk) 21:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhithe Catimba Football Club

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

Fails WP:ORG and doesn't have enough for WP:GNG. I proposed deletion but tag was removed without reason. User who created page only contacted me about name of club not why notable. Page is basically a blurb and unsourced Team list. NZFC^(talk) 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does Chatham Cup participation not count wrt WP:FOOTYN? Nzd (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have this discussion with someone before about clubs meeting notability requirements because they play in a National Cup and was told they are guidelines only, they still need to meet WP:ORG. So appears to be conflicting requirements for sports clubs. One thing I will say is any team that is associated with NZ football can enter the cup as long as they pay the fee. So do feel it would be very broad to allow it in this case even though I wouldn't mind seeing another Nz clubs page on Wikipedia (though this page would still need a clean up). NZFC^(talk) 07:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say playing in the Chatham Cup is notable - but where is the evidence? Giant Snowman 12:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[31] Nzd (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has participated in the Chatham cup, meets FOOTYN. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 6 June 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)} 18:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets FOOTYN by virtue of Chatham Cup participation. Nzd (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm withdrawing my nomination as it appears that you can use Chatham Cup to meet WP:NFOOTYN clubs meet notability requirements because they play in a National Cup. NZFC^(talk) 21:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension (science fiction)

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

Appears to be a work of WP:OR with no reliable sources supporting the article's conclusions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elder race -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elder race is an entirely different concept. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete One could propose such a trope in SF, but this nugget of WP:OR isn't it, and if there is real literary analysis out there to which reference can be made, it's anyone's guess whether they would use this name for it. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. It's possible that enough academic study of the "ascend to a higher plane" trope exists that an article could be written on this topic, but even then, I'd argue that we lose nothing by scrapping this page and starting from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autotask Corporation

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

Queried speedy delete (asked in my user talk page) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: requested to reconsider the delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Per Consensus I'll start by contesting the contested speedy delete which while good faith was under WP:G11 and by my strong belief fails blatant and unambiguous advertising. WP:FIELD also cautions against deleting under G11 unless unambiguously proven. However there have been other issues identified in the article's tainted past and at AfD it is possible other issues will be brought forward. Examination of article history will reveal I improved then moved the article to mainspace about a day ago. Autotask came to my attention as a possible merge/redirect target for Soonr. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come across a content issue that means I do not wish to continue with the article in its current form at this time, and especially given the tainted history of this incarnation. I leave the option for anyone to continue with it ... On that basis I will go with the discussion consensus.. My apologies for any time wasted by people on this. I am looking for Scuba Project to introduce me to a trout. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll stand by the G11 challenge and careful inspection would have noted some neutralising comments. Perhaps far less than I like overall and not necessarily easy to spot. From my point of veiw i've lost the ability to query wikipedia for autotask and get a gist of what it's about. But there is another issue while this pragmatically has to be let go. That's not to say that I don't generally respect ye admins and reviewers ... Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing more than an advertisement based entirely on basic business announcements that literally any business will receive - there is nothing significant about it and there's certainly no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the editor who nominated for speedy, this is simply a business listing advertisement, masquerading as an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parkietenbos

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

PROD declined for reasons I can't possibly fathom. This is a dumpsite of no particular notability, therefore the article should be deleted. There is no reason to maintain it under WP:GEO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the PROD because the original concern (that it incorrectly labeled the subject as a village) was addressed. I did not check for notability. Maybe sources exist in the local languages? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the stub as it stands isn't good, but a search did come up with a few sources in three different languages. I'm not saying it's notable or not notable - would this be infrastructure under WP:GEOFEAT? There's a chance it's notable and could be expanded. SportingFlyer talk 18:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, do you mind linking to some of those sources to allow everyone to evaluate them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these establish notability, but could help build out the article if notable. I've starred the ones I think are best on notability grounds. [32] [33] [34] [35]* [36]* [37]* [38]* [39] [40]* (among others) SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge to Aruba. There is some decent coverage in sources [41][42] which would allow some expansion. SpinningSpark 23:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'd support a merge, but I don't think there's enough substantial coverage (on what you've posted anyway) to support a keep. That book result you posted is a single paragraph in a tour guide type book, it's not that substantive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page originally described Parkietenbos as a village. There is some evidence in sources that this is a populated place as several businesses give it as their address: Rodoco Shipping and Trading SA [43], Aruba All Cargo Co., Demo Aruba MV, Ecury Motors, Ltd. This book description of the dump says the dump is "located in Parkietenbos", not that the dump is called Parkietenbos. As a populated place this should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. At the very least we can say that there is more going on there than just a dump. Also Historia di Aruba: 1499-1824 mentions Parkietenbos but I can't make any sense of the google machine translation of "Nan a establece nan mes na diferente lugar, entre otro na Daimari, Santa Marta, Buena Vista y Parkietenbos principalmente. Asina e teranan cerca yama "cunuco" a bin den existencia. Cada colonizador a desaroya nan pida tereno..." At least we can say from that that the place existed historically. SpinningSpark 22:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a named place, not just a landfill. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination, and no other editors support deletion, so I am closing this early to save everybody time and trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Harold

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

A before search I tried prior to this nomination did not yield satisfactory results so I will evaluate the current sources. The first is merely an image with a caption and the second is a namedrop. I realize this individual was before the internet, but we need something in the way of indepth secondary coverage to gauge GNG; I found slim-pickings to say the least. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results do indeed change when the correct spelling is used so I would be alright with a withdrawal that would keep the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The sources are nowhere near enough to show notability and in a before search I could only find passing mentions at best. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the improvement of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Notable performer. The article has improved since being nominated. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but formatting of references needs to be brought up to standard. Although there appear to be enough of them now that work has been done, I would agree that most are passing mentions which don't contribute to notability. There are one or two exceptions. And of course the article will need to be moved to the correct spelling of "Kid Harold". Deb (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I updated a couple of references in the article. It has been improved since the nomination with more references and now meets WP:GNG. Z359q (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another case that could have been avoided if the creator of the article had put some proper effort in at the beginning (such as finding out the correct name). Thanks for your hard work, everyone else. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Strickland

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable JMHamo (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges This stub article needs some TLC! You can help improve it with constructive edits! TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if someone can write and source it properly. There's a valid notability claim here, but (a) the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG for it, as it consists of primary sources rather than reliable ones, (b) the article reads more like somebody tried to convert his résumé into prose rather than actually writing a properly toned encyclopedia article, and (c) that's not surprising considering that the article was created by User:LAVetAffairs. I'll grant that's more likely to be a staff member of the agency than Strickland himself, but even an employee is still a person with a direct conflict of interest who doesn't get to be starting the article regardless of Strickland's notability or lack thereof. Even for offices that pass NPOL #1, the notability is because media coverage about their work in that role is expected to exist, not because they get an exemption from ever having to actually cite any of it. This would be a clear keep if the article were written and sourced properly by somebody without a COI issue — but in this state of writing tone and sourcing, it's a blow it up and start over. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for improvement. As Bearcat says, running a large government department is a valid claim to notability. alternatively, allow discussion to continue for another week, and give editors a chance to source it. Article needs sourcing, but it is not problematic in anyway, merely an inadequate article on a prima facie notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes NPOL-1, and not that far off from SOLDIER (1 bump). BEFORE does show coverage. Article was improved since nomination. Could it be improved further? Yes. But it isn't in the TNT zone.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, I did a very slight cleanup of article, removing the worst of the PROMO from the lede, and adding a couple of reliable sources. This should satisfy Bearcat's objections. Do note that he meets WP:NPOL TWICE, heading major government departments first in Arizona, and now in Louisiana.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may just be semantic about what constitutes a government office, but I know the Arizona position is just a government department, not an elected office, and it appears the Louisiana department is the same. SportingFlyer talk 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:POL.1 specifies: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" including judges makes it clear that a cabinet-level appointee qualifies, as Bearcat and Icewhiz state above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dunno.~~ What I do know is that a search of INDEPTH coverage of his years in Arizona carries him soaring over the goalpost of WP:SIGCOV. And Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, are there any other articles you've found about him in Arizona that aren't in the article already? I don't see the "soaring," just a couple articles on how his firing was controversial. SportingFlyer talk 23:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many. I only made the most cursory start at improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. All I see from him from Arizona are articles about his firing. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read them? Do you know how to run a search?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's nothing I can find from Arizona that discusses him in any capacity except for the fact he was fired controversially, even though it looks like it was his own doing: [44]. There are other ways in which he could potentially pass WP:GNG, but I don't think this self-created event would do it. SportingFlyer talk 18:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meets NPOL because he held a cabinet-level position in Arizona Government of Arizona#Cabinet. Louisiana has a lousy Wikipedia page, but a pretty good press corps [[45] which puts him in the Cabinet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State cabinet positions are not elected offices. He could still pass WP:GNG, but he doesn't pass WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 18:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, SportingFlyer, NPOL notability is not conditional on whether the person was elected or appointed to the office they hold — NPOL #1 does cover off things like Canadian senators and UK members of the House of Lords, who are appointed rather than elected, interim US senators who get appointed by the governor as temporary placeholders pending the special election after an elected senator's resignation or death, and federal or state cabinet members in the United States where those operate outside the legislature and thus do not necessarily have to be held exclusively by people who had ever previously been elected to anything. The issue here is the lack of sourcing and the semi-advertorial WP:COI, not the fact that he was appointed and not elected to his position. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I wasn't trying to read in something which says he must be elected. I just don't read a state cabinet falling under an "office" in NPOL #1. SportingFlyer talk 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Available sources with SIGCOV include:

White House lauds veterans director for military service, aid, Rookhuyzen, David. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz23 July 2012: B.1.]

Col. Joey Strickland, Director, Arizona Department of Veterans Services, a Choctaw-Cherokee who has also served as the Director of the Louisiana Governor's Office of Indian Affairs from January 1996 to August 2004. lede sentence in: Group teams up to honor military service women Mangus, Cherokee. News from Indian Country; Hayward, Wis. [Hayward, Wis18 Aug 2008: 10.

LA. VETS AGENCY GETS LEADER: [THIRD Edition] The Associated Press. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]23 May 1998: A3

Commission names new veterans affairs director Advocate; Baton Rouge, La. [Baton Rouge, La]23 May 1998: 10-G.

Sir, yes, sir! Courtney Lacour, Melissa Gregory. The Town Talk; Alexandria, La. [Alexandria, La]12 July 1999: A.3. (about retraining Louisiana vets to become teachers)

Vets speak out on Strickland's removal, hope Brewer relents Sloane, Arthur. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz06 Apr 2013: 11. ]

Investigation blasts former VA secretary Hilburn, Greg. The Times; Shreveport, La. [Shreveport, La02 Feb 2016: A.1.] about Strickland cleaning up corruption left by predecessor: "Former Louisiana Veterans Affairs Secretary Dave LaCerte is accused of improperly funneling funds to a company owned by former law school classmates, lying about his military service record and inflating travel expenses in a joint report released today by the state's legislative auditor and inspector general...".

Lots more out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly closer to WP:GNG than many other local political articles that are out there, even if it's close to the line. My concerns come from the fact his first moment of notability came from his high-profile firing in Arizona, the fact there was a COI with the creation of the page, and the question about whether an appointed position passes NPOL #1 (I don't think it does). I'm also unsure all of those articles show SIGCOV: the Hilburn article only appears to quote him to pass WP:V. Also, it appears he resigned from his position rather than being fired, even if the resignation was controversial. I'll clean that up in case this gets kept. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. He became notable either when he was appointed Director of the Louisiana Governor's Office of Indian Affairs in 1996; or when he became executive director of Veterans Affairs in Louisiana in ; or when he became president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs in 2003; but not later than 2008 when he became a cabinet member in Arizona. Also, please be careful not to ~~slander~~ inaccurately and wantonly discredit article subject.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the accusation of slander. I have said nothing untruthful. Furthermore, he did not become notable when he was appointed - that falls outside WP:NPOL, and being appointed only passes WP:GNG if it is very well sourced. SportingFlyer talk 17:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevens Berry

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

This page is well written. It makes several different claims at notability (author, entertainer, lawyer) all of which I ultimately feel come up short. The best sourcing I can find is coverage in local newspapers about clients he's represented but not about him more generally. The sourcing on this page is all basically autobiographical so that's no help either. Feels borderline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't care for this page as written and sourced, but looking at newspapers.com, there is more than enough material to create a better article than currently exists.[46] I think the current article fails WP:NOR, and maybe WP:PROMO, but here are a few profiles of Berry that could be used .[47][48][49][50] If someone wants to do this and doesn't have access to newspapers.com, let me know and I'll make clippings of the articles that are open access. If no one wants to take the project on, I do not have a strong opinion that it should definitely be kept. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivnath Mishra

AfDs for this article:

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

I started this page when I was under the impression that the subject's notability could be ascertained reasonably well. However, there have been few cited additions since, and it is likely that the page does not meet notability standards, and is also not easily verifiable due to a lack of independent verifiable sources. This page could possibly be merged with Deobrat Mishra whose notability seems to have been established. Shobhit102 | talk 09:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they seem to have similar awards. Their father was also a musician, s was their uncle. Perhaps an article for the family? DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe info regarding other members in the family could be added in the son's page. This by itself does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:IRS. Shobhit102 | talk 19:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough: Seems notable enough, has coverage in Hindi and vernacular media..like "प्रख्यात सितार वादक पं. शिवनाथ मिश्र" (Noted Sitar player...) in Hindustan, third-largest circulated newspaper in India.. Have added 2 more links. All the best. --Ekabhishek^talk 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 09:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 06:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hrefna Björk Sverrisdóttir

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP with a very weak claim of notability. Prod removed with the comment "This is a genuine page. I will add more references and informatiob later. Thank you" by an IP in the UK who is apparently the same editor as another IP currently on a final warning for unexplained changes to this article and Magnús Scheving.

The only source in the article is also the only independent reliable source I can find on the subject. It provides very little info on the subject, only that she co-owns a restaurant and that Magnús Scheving provided some input. Her apparent notability, such as it is, as Head of Creative Development and Operations of LazyTown Entertainment is not mentioned, nor is any meaningful biographical info. While her LinkedIn page does confirm that job, that is not helpful for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The position itself is not typically an indication of notability. SummerPhD^v2.0 15:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there was more RS verifying her position, I would consider a redirect. However, BLPs need to be held to a high standard, and the total absence of secondary sources makes me believe that the standard cannot be met.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dammit steve (lovely name); a lot of those are sourced to a single publication (Vísir.is), but now at least I believe it is not entirely hopeless to create a worthwhile article, hence my change to weak keep'.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are various sources about her and her business ventures in the Icelandic media [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. She also seems to be engaged to the above mentioned Magnús Scheving [63]. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about Hrefna. For example [64] contains most of life story and is secondary source. Other sources posted by Dammit_steve are also good, even sources in article are good. Use https://translate.google.is to read sources. 11:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.136.16 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, having read through all of the secondary sources I could (the ones that are images of newspapers obviously can't be translated) and there seems more than enough to cover her - different sources, covering different aspects of her life. The article could be vastly more substantial. The only ambiguity comes from the fact that google translate isn't great with icelandic, but more than enough to make me happy that notability is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure why Dammit_steve and ~~North Americ~~ 109.146.136.16 didn't !vote Keep given their comments. If either of you has a negative bit or thinks it is insufficient please tell me in case I've missed it, please Nosebagbear (talk)

Sorry to NA1000 for accidental pinging - copied wrong signature! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I speak the language, I mostly commented to list some available sources to help others decide as it might be difficult for them to find those sources. That said, the Icelandic media have been covering her ventures regulary for more than a decade so I would say Keep. Also, it might be time to semi-protect the article as someone out there seems to have a really big issue with her relationship with Magnús Scheving and has vandalized both articles number of times. Dammit_steve (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG per the above sources. They do not have to be in English. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hertford County, West New Jersey

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

This is an article on a county that may not even have existed. The only source that even mentions it is a map. With only one source, there is a good chance that it was an error. The author of this article uses WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to try to explain how the county may have existed even though there are no records. The article must be deleted as a violation of WP:V Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know what the creator was thinking... Enigma^msg 16:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Random stating that the missing records are notable without indicating why. Only if some interesting reason that made them missing related to this potential county would that act as justification. We don't even have sufficient primary evidence to demonstrate existence - so there isn't enough to make for reliable secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like kind of obscure, quirky stuff about a place / placename that Wikipedia is good at handling. And the article seems encyclopedic. I believe it; I don't think anyone is contending that the information provided is false. Offhand, it seems it should be moved to "Hertford County, New Jersey", because surely it was understood to be part of New Jersey, presumably in the western part. It seems to me that it would be going backwards to delete this arcane info.

I recognize that I am not necessarily putting this not-a-vote in 100% proper terms. Please spare me all the accusations about wp:NOT / wp:ILIKEIT / wp:ITDOESNOHARM etc. All of those are true, that I do like it, it does no harm, and so on. Those may not be super-strongest reasons to keep it, but they are not reasons to delete it. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll spare you the usual criticism as you requested since you already admitted your reasoning or lack thereof. It is my contention that the information provided is the article is false. The only fact in the article is that the county appeared on a map (which most likely could have been just an error). Everything after that is just speculation by the author to attempt to explain how the county could have existed despite the fact that there are no records of it. It actually is harmful to keep this article since it violates WP:V and WP:OR and is not all encyclopedic. If the article was kept, the rename you suggested would not be appropriate because at the time the county allegedly existed, New Jersey did not exist, there was an East Jersey and a West Jersey.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay about not renaming; i had not followed the included link about West Jersey.

The information in the article is true. Nothing is disputed. For example, everyone believes the assertion that "A note on the Thornton map states, 'The R: Derwin or Asumpinck is the bounds between the County's of Burlington and Hertford on the Wt side of the line of Partition'."

Since the nominator's argument is "that the information is provided in the article is false", this should be closed, perhaps Speedy Keep, as the nomination is obviously invalid.

And, it is irritating that this nominator, in this AFD also as in other AFDs, is apparently bent on commenting about every comment that does not agree with them. I assume it will be continuing to be irritating, because that is what they will do next. --Doncram (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right, I'm going to comment again. What's really irritating is someone who continually participates in AfDs, but has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Half the time you don't even bother reading the articles that are nominated (you even admitted to it [65]). The existence of the county on a single map does not prove it exists. If it really existed, don't you think some other mapmaker would have picked up on it? The rest of the article is a made-up explanation of how this county may have existed. We shouldn't be writing articles on things that may or may not be true. The article is a clear violation of WP:V, one of the core content polices. I challenge you to find one, just one, other source that says this county existed. It seems highly unlikely to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe people - keep it calm. Doncram - AfD is a discussion, not a pot of (reasoned or otherwise) viewpoints. Rusf10 is more than entitled to try and convince people, so long as he isn't hectoring, which his activity is well off.

I would call Rusf10s comment hectoring, actually.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what shall we call your usual contributions to AfD?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ withdraw. Puzzling nomination since we have entire categories filled with proposed things that never happened (Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States; Category:Proposed buildings and structures by country, not to mention Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities). Obviously, we only keep proposed things that can be reliably sourced, and this proposed county is sourced to what to be reliable sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not having an article about something that was proposed. The issue is we can't even verify that it was proposed. The only source is a single map. I'm going to guess that the map was an error and nothing more. The article starts off by telling us it "was either a proposed or a former county," meaning that basically nothing is known about it. How does that pass WP:V?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - particularly as the reliable sources aren't actually sourcing the relevant bit of the article - they are there almost to prove a negative, rather than the primary point of the article. The reliable bit has to be relevant to the core of the article Nosebagbear (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear:I'm confused, did you vote twice?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: - sugar I did. In fact in doing so I actually gave the opposite to my POV. Which would make me the worst AfD cheat ever :S . Thanks for pointing it out! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if an article existed about the Thornton map, this might be a plausible redirect target. As it is, even reliable sources aren't sure if it ever existed or was simply a drafting error on a single map. The coverage in comprehensive histories of boundaries of New Jersey isn't sufficient to meet GNG here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are not enough sources to verify the information. Geographical divisions, (even if they are only proposed), could be notable. However, I would at least expect some sources which describe the entity. In this case it seems that there is only a single map which mentions this. This is not enough to claim that "it was a proposed county". That would be original research. Maps often contain spelling errors and older maps may not always be very reliable. What I would be looking for is secondary sources such as a contemporary academic work which examines these maps and reaches some conclusion.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Having articles on a porposed place is one thing. However we have no evidence that this place was ever proposed by anyone with any power to bring it into existence. There are no sources verrifying it was a concrete and clear thing that existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Digging a little deeper, I can see that this was a highly probable naming proposal, given that a group of Quaker families from Hertfordshire had just arrived in this part of West New Jersey when that map was created, and, of course, that fact taht we have lots of old American counties were named for English shires (including Hertford County). While I would not be surprised if additional sourcing exists, I have not found it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would agree, if you were not such a fucking twit.50.201.95.250 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

My talk page is being attacked by foul-mouthed IPs. I am sorry that this is now appearing on an AfD page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory I struck the attack. I would have just blanked it, but then your comment above would not make much sense to those who are not looking at th AFD's editing history.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Ivan Doroschuk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mote in God's Eye (demo album)

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

This unreleased demo, see WP:FUTUREALBUM, is not notable per WP:NMUSIC. No coverage by reliable sources has been found; possible/likely WP:LINKVIO issues. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist (Ivan Doroschuk). Viable search term, as it seems to exist, but doesn't meet the WP:GNG as long as it didn't receive any third party coverage (all sources are just Youtube song uploads at this point.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockstack

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Guylepage3 with few other contributions outside this topic. With $4M in venture funding and per review of available sources, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Scholar appears to be showing significant coverage, while some of that is WP:SPIP there do appear to be several independent references ... eg ISBN:1983910821 Anderson; https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8291986/. Creating author apparently not informed by nom.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reference namechecks the company but does not provide in-depth information on the company. At most it discusses the technology developed by the company. The reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The initial article lede is more about the technology than the company .. and prior to this edit the infobox was software not the company.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be about the project not the company. The blockstream project has importance in the history of blockchain technology: it is a preeminent example of an 'overlay' system, a chain that runs on top of another. Also, because it switched its overlay from one blockchain (namecoin) to another (bitcoin), it acts as a powerful example of the robust nature of 'overlays'.Acuster (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It does have a large reference footprint in GScholar, but I'm not seeing papers that build on this idea and move forward with it; instead, it come across as everyone who does a paper on any blockchaining idea has the same section of name-dropping every other idea in the field, whether they use it or not. Therefore the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant RS coverage not found?" Uh.... hello!!!!! These are a like, a billion independent sources where nearly 90-percent or more of their content is about Blockstack: Forbes, two CoinDesk sources, Silicon Angle, the GScholar article mentioned above, Wired, all over the course of two years and all cited in the article!!!! "the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea." So what, they're still covering Blockstack! And that's just the beginning of it all. Clearly, the nominator did not do his research so much so that he couldn't just do one simple search on Google News. This is just another example that Afd is being handled by a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about or what the intercourse notability really means. Speedy Keep and block the nominator for his disruptive nomination. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Are you sure you've properly read and understood both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? References that meet the criteria for establishing notability are examined to a higher standard than references used to support a fact within the article. To meet the criteria for establishing notability, references must first of all be "intellectually independent" - this means that the reference must not extensively rely on information provided by the company (company announcements and press releases) or their officers (founder interview profiles, quotations, other interviews) and instead must provide some intellectually independent opinions or analysis. Forbes is usually a terrible source, most of their article on new companies are advertorials. This Forbes reference fails as it is not intellectually independent as it relies on quotations and information from company officers provided at a conference, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The first Coinbase reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from a company officer - fails for the same reasons. Also, CoinDesk is not an independent source since CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Blockstack. The next CoinDesk reference fails because CoinDesk is not an independent source and also fails because it also relies on information provided by the company. The SiliconAngle reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it says nothing about the company - the topic of this article - and only discusses the technology. Finally this Wired reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, first, "a mere mention-in-passing" Are you kidding? My browster that the company's name was used seven times throughout the Wired article, so it's talked about a moderate amount. Second, you haven't given a rebuttal about the sources from the Google News search I linked to you.editorEهեইдအ😎 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Third, you said the SiliconAngle article "says nothing about the company." Well, then either you didn't read the article, or you're a total idiot: THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE COMPANY!!!!!!! There's an action the company is making presented in the headline, an entire section about what the company does for the Bitcoin community (How does a Blockstack node work?), there's an entire section about the availability of the program (Installing and using Blockstack for developers), and do I even need to explain to you why this argument are complete, complete bullshit (yes, I said bullshit, and it's your fault if you get offended by it). People like you are a reason AFD is ruining Wikipedia. Go make-love yourself editorEهեইдအ😎 15:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Using your numbering system: First. Yes, the company (the topic of this article) was a mere mention-in-passing. The other times the name is used references the "platform" - which is not the subject of this article. Second. I don't respond to links to Google search and no rebuttal is needed. See WP:GHITS. If you want to link to a specific reference, I'm happy to look at that. Third. Again, this says nothing about the company. Nor is the article about the company. It says a lot about the technology/platform but this article is about the company and no other topic. It is very clear to me that you haven't read the WP:NCORP guidelines and I advise you to pay particular attention to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, I've left a warning on your Talk page for your personal attacks. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the coverage here is better than most of the other companies in this space which are similiarly hype-based; the Fortune and Wired articles may be enough. It's absolutely not a disruptive nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having examined the references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. They fail the test for intellectual independence and rely on company sources or they don't discuss the company. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Veenstra

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

doubtful notability, single source is author's own very bloggy-blog, in Dutch; no edits outside basic maintenance and bots have been done in years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no indepdent sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, cant find an article on Veestra in dutch WP drat!, from his website has received a number of awards (under Biografie) (a couple superfically appear regional in nature), but cannot find dutchWP articles on them, checking WorldCat his works are held in a handful of libraries (not surprising for books written in a regional language), WorldCat does have the following, some of which appear to be reviews of his work:

Wilde gaanzen, Fluitekruud, Een vlinder van zulver, Roman-debuut: een vlinder van zulver-, Naachs goelen de honnen, Boeiende verhaelen in 'De boot naor Valhöll, Ferhalen fan in byldzjend ferteller : 'Een meenske is gien eerpel': nije ferhalebondel fan Johan Veenstra, Verrassend Stellingwarfs, "Toegift" dadde roman van Johan Veenstra., De wereld is gek : boekenijs, Geen Saxonia, maar Longerlaand : harje which if reviews would back a "keep" but again language barrier prevents confirmation of them, that said, i am loathe to outright deletion ("surprise, surprise, coola":)), suggest that if not kept, then a sentence or two can be added to the Stellingwarfs dialect article. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have just found the Foundation Stellingwarver Schrieversronte, an organisation that preserves and promotes the Stellingwarfs dialect, on a page that is in english (hooray!) they state "Johan Veenstra is one of the most fruitful authors. He wrote 21 books in the Stellingwarvian language; volumes of poetry, short stories and romans too.", so no. 2 of WP:ANYBIO may be invoked? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~., Although if there were any WP:RS at all I would suggest MERGE to Stellingwarfs dialect, the tiny language in which he writes. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone manages to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC) I will withdraw because I do not have time today to read the sources below. There is no reason why a contemporary writer in Occitan, Cornish or Stellingwarfs cannot be notable, but we do need sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at utter least merge into Stellingwarfs dialect. Coverage is regional, which is not unexpected considering the tiny language he writes in, but *nowhere* near as local as the area in which said language is spoken. Said tiny language/dialect is pretty much limited to an area of two muncipialities with a total population between them of ~50,000. The coverage is mostly local to Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe and Overijssel with the occasional mention outside those. However, that's four Dutch provinces, several steps up from how local said language is. He is regarded as a very major part of the Stellingwarfs literary movement and a fairly important figure in the Frisian literary movement; within his area of expertise his body of work is significant and well-known (esp. when considering he was made Knight in the Order of Orange Nassau for it.) Sources unfortunately are just about all either in Dutch, Frisian or a specific dialect. If any specific translation is needed, feel free to ping me.

Significant coverage in the Leeuwarder Courant.
Significant coverage by sirkwy, a website of Tresoar, the Frisian History and Literature Center. More specifically, sirkwy is Tresoar's website "for documentary information about the Frisian literature" ("foar dokumintêre ynformaasje oer de Fryske literatuer").
Above trivial but not particularly significant coverage in Streektaalzang, a website dedicated to dialect music in the Netherlands.
A review of Fluitekruud. It is almost certainly insufficiently independent considering Veenstra's position as staffmember at said journal at time of the review. However, it is relevant because it makes mention of another review, by Tiny Mulder in Friesch Dagblad on 12-11-1977 (that'd be 12 November, Netherlands uses day-month-year): "Eers as Tiny Mulder in et Friesch Dagblad van 12-11-1977 mien ik dat et verhael Requiem veur Eli wel liekegoed uutwarkt hieten mag as de verhaelen Heit en Fluitekruud." ("Just as Tiny Mulder in the Friesch Dagblad of 12-11-1977 am I of the opinion that the story 'Requiem veur Eli' can be called equally well developed as the stories 'Heit' and 'Fluitekruid'.") Unfortunately, considering the age of the mentioned review, I have been unable to find it online and do not have access to a physical copy either.
Similarly, I have found traces but no online available copies of several other reviews and articles ranging from the mid-70s to about the start of this century.
Significant coverage of both Veenstra and his work in Frisian literary journal Trotwaer by Tineke J. Steenmeijer-Wielenga.
Significant mention of Veenstra within the larger Frisian literature in "Zolang de wind van de wolken waait. Geschiedenis van de Friese literatuur" 2006, a book about the history of Frisian literature. To cite part: "De gangmakers van het eerste uur, genoemde Bloemhoff, Pieter Jonker (*1952) en Johan Veenstra (*1946) vormen nog steeds de kern van de Stellingwerver taalbeweging." ('The pacesetters of the first hour, being Bloemhoff, Piet Jonker (*1952) and Johan Veenstra (*1946) still form the core of the Stellingwarfs literary movement')
Was made Knight in the Order of Orange Nassau in 2001 for "all his work in and for the Stellingwarfs dialect" ("voor zijn werk in en voor het Stellingwarfs"/"foar syn krewearjen foar de Stellingwerfske taal"), as mentioned (in sources about him/his work but not specifically about him being knighted, as well as in sources about the people made Knight in the Order of Oranje) here ("Yn 2001 is Veenstra foar syn krewearjen foar de Stellingwerfske taal beneamd ta Ridder in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau."), here ("Johan Veenstra is in 2001 benoemd tot Ridder in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau voor zijn werk in en voor Weststellingwerf"); source is reliable but essentially trivial as far as coverage/notability goes, here ("In 2001 werd Veenstra benoemd tot Ridder in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau.") and here ("De heechst útrikte ûnderskieding yn Fryslân is de Ridder in de orde van Oranje Nassau. 21 Friezen krigen dy opspjelde. Under har binne de skiedend boargemaster Koopmans, kabaretiere Leny Dijkstra en skriuwer Johan Veenstra.") among other places.
Was nominated for the "Streektaalprijs" ("Dialect prize") from Dagblad van het Noorden, 2007 edition (list of nominations of the 2007 prize); won in 2009 and again in 2015 (article in Dagblad van het Noorden regarding the 2015 win which also mentions the 2009 win), which was also covered by media and organizations other than the Dagblad van het Noorden such as Omrop Fryslân here (in regards to the 2015 win, but also mentions the 2009 win), former Dutch literary journal, now literary weblog Tzum here (about 2015; mentions 2009), Stichting Woest & Ledig, an organization "with as aims the development, stimulation and promotion of art and culture in North-East Netherlands" ("heeft als doel het ontwikkelen, stimuleren en onder de aandacht brengen van kunst- en cultuuruitingen in Noord-Oost Nederland.") (here, regarding his 2009 win), RTV Noord here (re:2015 win) and the Leeuwarder Courant here (re: 2015; mentions 2009)
Received a bunch of more local prizes as well. As those convey basically no notability, not gonna list them here.

Per request above, also pinging @E.M.Gregory:. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made a start at improving the article per the sources I've listed above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by AddWittyNameHere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of film and television clichés

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

This is in no sense a Wikipedia article, it is just a randomly compiled list of things loosely lumped together under a vaguely defined umbrella ThatGuamGuy (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs improvement but the concept of a list which itemises film and TV cliches seems encyclopaedic. That they’re all referenced is a big plus point. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure what the best way to organize it is, but easy to reference, there are several media cliche websites and it is easy to search for the word "cliche" in a movie review. --RAN (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The issue here is WP:SYNTH, while the article includes a lot of sources, its based on a bunch of different opinion pieces thrown together. Also the reliability of some (but not all) of the sources is questionable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there will be some source that discusses common sequences in film somewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Yorkshiresky. Though some of the claims maybe synthesized but they can be verified by watching the films. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Movie cliches are interesting, but the list has no encyclopedic basis, and TVTropes is a better resource if one wanted to explore movie tropes by genre. The lede certainly doesn't give a reason for the list's existence, and "considered to be overused" is disingenuous - tropes aren't bad by nature, only bad writing that leans on tropes is. Additionally, the list conflates thematic tropes with stock characters, despite the fact that they should really be categorized and listed separately._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though as per Yorkshiresky, the article needs improvement. I do think it could be a great article with work, maybe put more prose in there rather than just tables.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. A few examples of clichés does not make a notable list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly subjective concept and nearly infinite topic. Calm Omaha (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calm Omaha. For example, the EL is much longer than this article. The subdivisions are subjective even if the inclusion criteria weren't. And I don't think Spirited Away ended like that... –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film and television clichés and the linked discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as indiscriminate list of assorted opinions. How many critics does it take to turn a trope into a cliche? Does it matter which critics say so? The whole thing is hopelessly subjective. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit quirky but a shame to lose.--Davidcpearce (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple other film studies-related lists. Legit subject matter. --- Evans1982 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate and subjective. An old man's cliché is a young man's fresh concept. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Charm

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. This entity was deleted back in 2010 for WP:SPIP (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Art_of_Charm ). In January 2017, a WP:SPA created this page and the page about its founder, Jordan Harbinger (see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Art_of_Charm&action=history ). I did a Google News search for the entity and they're just passing mentions or name drops. There's no significant coverage as required by WP:CORP. Also, given the fact that the articles was created by a single purpose account 7 years after it was originally deleted, I'm pretty sure there's some foul play here; especially since the user didn't go through AfC. CerealKillerYum (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. For example The Guardian article says:

"The Art of Charm podcast can be intimidating. Not just because it’s the work of a lawyer called Jordan Harbinger. Not simply because Jordan has worked out how to weaponise all the many elements of the human personality that go to make up charisma in order to get people to listen to him, be impressed by him or hire him. But mainly because he also has the energy to turn these thoughts into podcasts of frightening intensity. I can’t listen to more than half of the long episodes without having a lie down.

His “minisodes” are easier to take. A lot of it is just common sense – today you should text two people you haven’t texted in a while – but by turning everyday niceness into a matter of iron policy he has become a regular Dale Carnegie of the digital dispensation." FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A little more careful examination of the sources cited (or stirred up) reveals the following:

The Harvard Business Review gives examples of successful podcast formats, among which it name-drops (once) the Art of Charm (AoC).

All the reports with Shaq in them, e.g. USA Today, Business Insider, Forbes (4/2016), etc, are about Shaq's statements on the Earth being flat, and they simply mention that he spoke on AoC.

The Time article contains viewpoints on storytelling offered by a bunch of people, including the AoC creator. It's not about AoC.

And so on, down the line. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and The Gnome, who does a great job examining the references. Ifnord (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If more details of the source come i can review Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Bucket of Rocks)

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

poorly sourced Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains all of the sources about the artwork. RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the first source listed in References called "Warkel, H.G., Drouse, M.F., and Berry, S.L. The Herron Chronicle. Indianapolis: Herron School of Art, 2005" because it is in print. Can you tell me what it says? Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 1 source does not have a 404 error or something similar, and the only source that does only mentions the bucket of rocks once. If no more sources are available, then the article "# Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" and reducing the content to stuff that is properly sourced will turn the article into a stub. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RichardMcCoy—is there anything more that you can add to this discussion? I'm not sure if you feel the article should be deleted or not. Sourcing seems to be sparse but perhaps you endorse the significance of the one source in print and not available on the Internet and which consequently I have not seen. I don't oppose the artwork illustrated at Untitled (Bucket of Rocks) but as you know reliable sourcing is necessary. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pet the Dog

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

I can't find any evidence that this band or it's musicians meet WP:NMUSIC. Only independent sources I can find are mentions in local papers about playing at local bars. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 09:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P-town

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

Completely uncited. Various users over the years have been indiscriminately adding seemingly their own hometowns that begin with P. I deleted all the ones in the US other than Provincetown, but, c'mon, Paris? Nobody has ever called it that. JesseRafe (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~...probably?~~ Disambiguation pages never have citations per se. For a page like this, the criterion for whether an entry should be included is whether the topic name is referred to in the target article. (The article should then presumably have a citation supporting that.)

The appropriate first step here, then, would be to delete any entry that doesn't meet that criterion. If that collapses down to a couple of entries, then that's still a keep. If it's one entry, then change the page to a redirect. If it's zero entries, then delete.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad rubric, I didn't go back to check on the other US ones I deleted, but unsurprisingly all the others failed this test except for Provincetown. So this will likely distill to a redirect if that's the only verified (and obviously most logical) instance. JesseRafe (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portland, Oregon has some pull quotes that are cited, but I would argue that these are not truly verified nicknames, just what one person quoted in an article might have said. Petaluma, California and Pomona, California have it on their pages, but uncited. The latter with a CN up for 40 months, the former with nothing. If the two California ones are not reliably sourced, I'd move for a redirect to Provincetown with at most a hatnote that P-Town redirects there and a "for Portland" link. JesseRafe (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider adding Pleasanton, California back. The nickname used to be noted within its article, but I hadn't noticed it had been pulled a couple of years, but is cite-able. (Where I live, in case you hadn't guessed... :-) ).

Provincetown clearly has the strongest claim, but even though the ones we've mentioned here are not as well known, I think some or all of them still have enough of a claim to retain the dab page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disambiguation pages are not of encyclopedic content; they are navigation aids and do not need citations. If this were being presented as a list (close call here), we would expect citations; but deletion for lack of citations is not a remedy that is available (see WP:DELETE, where #6 comes closest: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"). Given no end of reliable sources showing P-town in relation to Provincetown, MA; no rational editor could invoke #6. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and most or probably all of the deleted U.S. ones should be added back. As a disambiguation page, this is supposed to help readers get to where they want, and if Pleasanton has ever been referred to as "P-town" ever then it is a help to suggest that it might be what the reader is looking for. Provincetown is properly identified as being the most commonly intended. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One could argue that Provincetown is the wp:PRIMARYUSAGE and consequently that P-town should redirect to there, with this dab page moved to P-town (disambiguation). But that hasn't been argued, has it? And I think that is still consistent with "Keep" for this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I assume some of the non-Provincetown entries are legitimate, though Google search gives me no help to prove that. If none of them are, this should redirect to Provincetown, Massachusetts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are a number of articles that satisfy WP:DABMENTION. I've removed the long arbitrary list of places that happen to start with a "P" where the linked articles make no mention whatsoever of the ambiguous term. older ≠ wiser 18:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kniaz

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

Delete No indications of notability, fails WP:BASIC. Just a run-of-the-mill financier. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source list is a classic example of link-packing (is that a term?) - most of them are unreliable or press releases, a couple are dead links, a few are from the subject's own website (Hoxton Ventures) and the few impressive-looking ones (Sky, CNBC) just have a quote from Mr. Kniaz on whatever topic the article is addressing, and no actual coverage of Kniaz himself. There's nothing else online about him at all. Amsgearing (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm in the process of updating this as well as the fund page. This is a meaningful investor as he has two of the largest UK successes in recent times, Deliveroo and Darktrace and they have substantially grown assets over time. Misterpottery (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Not independently notable of Hoxton Ventures; the notability of the latter is unclear, being at AfD itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also please note the inclusion of a signficant number of US patents that are significant in the advertising industry. Misterpottery (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Kanji

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete An investor who has a great reputation and is asked for their opinions on TV. The best claim appears that they were cited as the #1 "influential technology investor in Europe" by The Telegraph, but on closer inspection, it was a poll conducted by PeerIndex who conduct a variety of different polls that change every second week. For me, this person fails notability criteria, fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator, no reliable in-depth independent coverage found. Amsgearing (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unremarkable venture capitalist. I'm not able to locate coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. The coverage is either PR driven or contains commentary by the subject: link. WP:TOOSOON -- the subject is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards. The nn ranking does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm in the process of updating this as well as the fund page. This is a meaningful investor as he and his partner have two of the largest UK successes in recent times, Deliveroo and Darktrace and they have substantially grown assets over time. Misterpottery (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the expansion was not really an improvement: [66]. For example, https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/ is a non-editorial directory, same for "He is also a regular speaker at technology events including the Milken Institute" cited to http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/. Being "chosen as one of the '100 coolest' people in European technology by Business Insider" is not an honour that confirs notability. The subject is still nn and it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although it's close numerically, the "delete" side has put forth arguments as to why the cited sources are insufficient to which the "keep" side has not responded. Sandstein 10:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Kamra

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

Non-notable individual. Has received minor coverage in news sourcesblogs, zines and tabloids—and even less in literature. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Possibly WP:TOOSOON on the assumption his career takes a suitable trajectory...and coverage in WP:RS with it :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. So Why 15:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources linked to are not reliable sources and do not show that his passes notability criteria. Natureium (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources like Livemint The Hindu The Times of India Indian Express are reliable. Person is notable because of his interview series 'Shut up ya Kunal'Accesscrawl (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Accesscrawl, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Deb (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been covered by reliable sources in depth. Livemint The Hindu Indian Express and many more. Unlike what was said by a user above, the above sources and the ones linked in the article are perfectly reliable. The deletion of a article is not based on its current state, if the subject has been covered in multiple reliable sources, it is considered notable. Pratyush (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in mainstream publications qualifies for WP:IRS and should ensure WP:BIO notability. Shobhit102 | talk 09:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Look at each source none of them are indepth about Kunal and are about the show not Kunal:

[67] - is about his show a specific event in Chennai not directly about the subject.
[68] another review about his show
[69] First-ever stand-up clip landed on YouTube a year ago in March 2018 shows he is upcoming
[70] about the show states the Three episodes of Shut Up Ya Kunal went online between July 20 and July 25. 2017
[71] about an interview with Ravish Kumar

1. [72] about his show talks about his third episode
2. [73] this one alone is about the subject 182.65.62.153 (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both the Mint and the Indian Express features are largely about the individual, not only about the show. Shobhit102 | talk 16:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-We should be looking for independent significant coverage from secondary sources (which should obviously be reliable). Among the sources brought up are:
- [74]- This source doesn't qualify as it is an interview and thus is not independent of the subject.(Whatever is said by the subject is written)
- [75]-Parts of this article do qualify as a independent reliable source.
- [76]-Most of this article is based off an an interview and partially from various social Media posts made by him...Thus this article also cannot be called an independent source.
- [77]- This article is almost entirely reliant on a social media post made by the subject and thus is not independent.

Thus from the above analysis we can conclude that there is only one independent, mostly-reliable source to support the claims of notability of the article subject. This is however not enough and thus I would support deletion of the article based on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON taking into consideration the state of the current coverage. — F R ⁺ 07:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[78] is surely not an interview. The article has bits of excerts from the subject but it won't be justice to call it an interview. Also based on the length of the article (Indian sources generally don't have such long articles on comics and actors (WP:INDAFD)), the subject passes WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pratyush please mention your take. Keep or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl:, it has already been mentioned above. Pratyush (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accesscrawl, making comments without declaring a vote is allowed. Natureium (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly not notable started only in 2017 and 2 brief pieces in The mint and Indian Express is not significant coverage.Normsynge (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's quick for a one day old account to participate in AFD discussions and cite notability guidelines. BTW, according to this source, he started in 2013. Pratyush (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He started in 2013 but only after 2017 that did his videos even get uploaded to Youtube as per thisand his career really began and the show shut Up Ya Kunal start.Normsynge (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnikant Ajmera

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

Nothing apart from typical PR stuff. The positions held by him do neither confer any automatic notability. Mis-sourced. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look notable Accesscrawl (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local level industrialist lacking the level of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- He is heading US$ 450 million worth Ajmera Group spread over India & Arabia with interests spread in real estate, cement, steel, fun parks, pharma industry. Further he was awarded Lifetime Achievement Award - Golden Pillar Award in 2018 & president of CREDAI & MCHI, that itself makes him notable enough. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The award is non-notable and by a mile.Also, notability ain't inherited.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware notability is not inherited, the argument does not fall in place here. He is a notable businessman of India, Ajmera Group worth US$ 450 million is headed by him, in fact he brought company to such heights. He was president of CREDAI, highest body of real estate developers in india but stays away from media & limelight. The award is certainly not a non notable, as per my view. Jethwarp (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references mostly talk about business deals associated with the company and not about the person. The award is sourced to a pr announcement so notability is dubious. --regentspark (comment) 00:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Jessica Evans

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

Non-notable musician / motorcyclist. I could not find many RS about her. Her article has many minor snippets of refs, but nothing seems to be substantial. Natg 19 (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is felt that the subject of this article meets the guidelines for notability. There is no original source material. There are multiple secondary source links. There is only one "snippet" inserted as a place holder until the proper citation has been found. The fact that the subject appeared in a movie (Motorcycle Women) as the lead, documented in IMDB, would seem to validate notability. The fact that the subject co-founded the first all-female outlaw motorcycle club (Devil Dolls) in the country in modern (or any other) times, and the citations to confirm this, would seem to meet the guidelines for notability. While part of the content may appear to be "puffery" (older Lady Gaga and an outlier), this can be cured by removing it if this is what should be done. An article regarding Devil Dolls Motorcycle Club is being prepared as is a shorter article for Motorcycle Women. Any help to improve this article is greatly appreciated. However, this article does not meet the criteria for deletion.Weathervane13 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Article for Motorcycle Women created. Movie added to List of Biker Films/2000s. Puffery removed.Weathervane13 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While I do agree that there is no original source material and multiple secondary sources, I do not feel that Evans meets the criteria for notability found at WP:BASIC. I did not find "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Just being in a movie in IMDB or founding a motorcycle club does not signify notablility, though those could be used to prove notability. Natg 19 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a secondary note, I do not believe that the film Motorcycle Women is notable either, though that should be discussed at a separate AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article --

From WP:Basic If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]

It seems that under this criterion that multiple independent sources have been provided with respect to four different aspect of Evans' life (recording artist, film and publications, first female outlaw motorcycle club in the U.S. and environmental activist). Combined, these 4 different aspects are more than enough for Evans to meet notability guidelines.Weathervane13 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

hi Weathervane13, if you add 4 tildes to the end of your words, your username (that will be bluelinked), and date/time of your edits is automatically added. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not a notable motorcyclist by any standard ever used for a bio known at WP:WikiProject Motorcycling. Her ~~name~~ moniker "Goth Girl" appears once in "The 1%er Encyclopedia" and maybe she was in a documentary (we aren't sure about this even) ... no go. So, since it is also clearly failing WP:NCREATIVE, this is a delete. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, is her founding of the Devil Dolls Motorcycle Club notable? or is the motorcycle club notable at all? Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, and I expressed doubts about the documentary, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is the link to the documentary, also listed in IMDB, a reliable and acceptable citation under Wiki criteria. ~~COPYLINK redacted~~

Evans also appears in The Biker Code, citation is in articleDevilishdoll (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, IMDB is considered non-reliable source per WP:UGC. It is not a reliable/acceptable whatever. Second, mere existence in a directory like IMDB does not confer notability. Critical commentary on a recording is what's important here. Is there any? I haven't seen it. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through the source-bombs. She gets a couple mentions in articles and books here and there, but fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and both a pianist and as an entertainer. --Evans1982 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Evans1982: can you explain what sources or references you found about her as an pianist / entertainer? I didn't find anything in my searches about those. Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reference is in article -- https://newspaperarchive.com/winnipeg-free-press-oct-01-1983-p-25/-- discusses her band, Makaface, which had a recording contract with A+M Records and released Sleeping Girls Don't LieWeathervane13 21:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Magloire

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

While the article is interesting, I am not seeing evidence of notability for WP:ARTIST - no awards, no prestigious/major collections, etc. And, none of the sources (for the information that is sourced) are independent sources. One of the sources does not seem to have her biography any longer. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander B. Gray

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

Random no-name politico from DC. Google shows no substantial coverage, and while it is wonderfully ref-bombed, none of it is substantial, intellectually independent, or reliable. We're talking about one-line quotes and his own articles, nothing more. Nothing here meets NPOL as he is not an elected official, and he fails WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit too soon. I'm not seeing susbtantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way below the threshold for administration figure notability unless there is enough coverage to pass GNG which there is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Doesn't really tell us anything that says he is above general office staff, and nothing comes up on an internet search. To be blunt, in the current White House climate, the nightly news details a virtual revolving door of staffers who are here today and gone tomorrow. No sourcing here to say this individual has notability. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter De Keyzer

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

Subject fails WP:NBIO; no substantial biographical details from independent reliable sources are available. Note that the article in its current state has whole sections sourced to blogs, and even subject's educational credentials are sourced to a speaker bio most likely supplied by the subject. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New School Center for Media

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

Only source is the school's website and the article lacks content and context. JDDJS (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vocational school, I would apply WP:ORGCRIT instead of WP:NSCHOOL and right now there aren't any sources that would meet that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best reference I've found is this article with a largely-trivial mention. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable as per nom Heshiv (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.. I also say non that notable as per nom --Lauranos (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "EPU: Penang monorail, Porr shelved". Malaysiakini. 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2018-05-30.

[2] "Monorail promise in Penang". www.thesundaily.my. Retrieved 2018-05-30.

[3] "Let us build LRT if you won't, Penang tells Putrajaya | Malay Mail". www.malaymail.com. Retrieved 2018-05-30.

[4] "Let us build LRT if you won't, Penang tells Putrajaya | Malay Mail". www.malaymail.com. Retrieved 2018-05-30.

[open-5] "Penang LRT construction work to start in 2018". The Edge Markets. 2015-12-02. Retrieved 2018-06-02.

[6] Niranjana Ramesh (19 January 2011). "A bitter-sweet conflict - Livemint". LiveMint. Retrieved 3 June 2018.

[7] Muthalaly, Shonali (9 June 2011). "A lot's cooking here". The Hindu. Retrieved 3 June 2018.

[8] Joseph, Raveena (17 October 2014). "Sugar, spice and all things nice". The Hindu.

[9] "Family that holidays together, stays together - Times of India". The Times of India. 20 November 2010. Retrieved 3 June 2018.

[10] Narayan, Shoba (18 December 2007). "Monsoon Diary: A Memoir with Recipes". Random House Publishing Group. p. 173.

[11] ttps://www.marathimovieworld.com/news/pakda-pakdi-music-launch.php

[12] ttps://www.marathimovieworld.com/news/pakda-pakdi-music-launch.php

[13] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/punes-landmark-cinema-hall-moves-high-court/articleshow/14955174.cms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]