Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Aafia Siddiqui. Redirect to his wife. Deleting before redirect because of possible BLP issues of implying he is involved in a plot without concrete confirmation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Mohammed Khan

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

Clear case of why notability is not inherited. By closely examining the sources available, it is revealed that most, if not all, are dedicated to the man's wife, Aafia Siddiqui, who is indisputably notable. While Khan is passively mentioned, we all know that does not count toward notability, and the apparent cite overkill attempts to compensate for that. Considering this is a BLP on an innocent man whose only significant claim of "notability" is being mixed up with his former spouse, it is entirely inappropriate and contrary to policy to have a seperate article on Khan. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a borderline speedy delete and borderline weak delete. Speedy because "might have been involved" in a plot is inappropriate for a lede for a BLP. Weak because there is a lot of reliable sources about aspects of the individual's life. Overall, however, it is pretty clear to me that this is not an encyclopedic subject and the sources do not lend themselves to a NPOV characterization of a person who seems to probably be a fairly anonymous, innocent person with no public profile. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the page about his wife as it is plausable that someone might use his name as a search term, but to be honest I would be fine with a delete as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aafia Siddiqui. Plausible search term, but not independently notable of Siddiqui at present.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aafia Siddiqui appears reasonable per above. Ifnord (talk) 02:39, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Herrera (singer)

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

No links for subject, not even clear if she really exists. There is a Venezuelan designer by the same name who is clearly notable. This one has only one link in the article, which is dead. Karmasabtich (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially saw lots of hits using Google, but then discovered that there's a fashion designer by the same name and a Canadian violin and viola player as well. None of the sources I found for this subject help contribute to GNG and presently, the subject doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I must admit, I'm quite surprised that previous contributors to this AfD seem to have never heard of Carolina Herrera before... she is a world-famous designer of clothes, accessories and fragrances. Anyway... the subject of this AfD is far less notable. She's played at WOMAD and at London's "La Linea" Latin music festival (the latter was her Queen Elizabeth Hall gig, mentioned in the article), but playing down the running order at world and Latin music festivals doesn't make her particularly notable. Apart from this there have been some sporadic gigs around the UK and Ireland [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (scroll down to Mary Coughlan's event on Oct 21 to see her mentioned in this last source), but mostly as part of low-key Latin music events, and are little more than event listings. The best references I've found are this one from BBC Mundo (in Spanish) [6] which briefly mentions how she was discovered as a busker, and this review in The Independent of her support slot at a Tania Libertad concert [7]. The worrying thing is that both of these articles are from 2004 (as was her WOMAD gig), and there are almost no credible sources since then, which suggests she didn't become anything more than one of the thousands of budding singers up and down the UK playing the odd support gig, and that fourteen years on from the first media interest in her, she is unlikely to ever be more notable. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: I'm a bit puzzled why Iridescent declined attempts to delete this article ten years ago [8], [9] – perhaps there was the same confusion with the fashion designer. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be because it was an absolutely blatant misuse of speedy deletion, and any admin who'd accepted it would—then and now—be at best admonished and likely stripped of the bit for admin abuse. Notability (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on speedy deletion, which is based exclusively on claims of significance, something Carolina Herrera has performed at numerous venues including the Queen Elizabeth Hall, Ronnie Scott's. Momo's, WOMAD festival, Wexford Opera Festival, Cork Jazz Festival and many other places, venues and festivals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland even meets in the stricter Wikipedia of the present day, let alone the Wikipedia of a decade ago where we traditionally turned a blind eye to puff-pieces provided they were at least reasonably neutral and the subject wasn't utterly obscure. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realise someone had tried speedy deleting it - yes, you are right, this would fail a speedy or a PROD. Thanks for clearing that up. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Only one reference. Fails WP:GNG. 344917661X (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was able to find an archive of the page on the Wayback Machine, so I replaced the dead link with the archived version. 344917661X (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that 344917661X - there's no indication who the "Andy Morgan" who supplied that information is, whether he was a BBC employee or if it's a user contribution, in which case it wouldn't be a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter that the source isn't reliable since the article is going to get deleted anyways. But thanks for pointing that out! 344917661X (talk) 12:23 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO notability. Ifnord (talk) 02:41, 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) 05:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Richetelli Jr.

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

A functionally unsourced WP:BLP which also fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Can't find enough sources to bring it over the line using WP:BEFORE. SportingFlyer talk 22:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- mayors do not automatically pass WP:NPOL. However, if this does get kept, may I recommend restoring the original version?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... That was the active page for nearly nine months... SportingFlyer talk 23:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being mayor of a city of about 50,000 is not a default sign of notability and nothing else suggests the subjewct may be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the city where he appears in a table of mayors. --RAN (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per SportingFlyer, for failing WP:NPOL. I don't see a need for redirect, it's doubtful someone will type in the whole exact name in the search box. Ifnord (talk) 02:44, 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. Fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast Security

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

The company has received more funding since the previous AFD, but I still cannot find sufficient coverage to indicate that WP:CORP is met. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging (unblocked) participants at the previous AFD: @Ohnoitsjamie, Vanamonde93, and Escape Orbit: SmartSE (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The coverage is better than the last time, but still does not amount to much. This is reliable but unsubstantive, this seems routine (though I could be persuaded otherwise), and this and this have urls suggesting they are blogs, and therefore unreliable. Those are the best I could find. Vanamonde (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhuru

(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 essentially no significant content or reliable sources since its creation despite the addition of various templates over the years. Even within unreliable or fringe sources, this barely gets a mention.^[1] The article was previously nominated for deletion (discussed here along with Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu and Ngoubou) with a result of no consensus. A redirect might be considered, but not to living dinosaur as that's unsupported by the supposed sighting of a "12-ft. lizard with a ridge or 'sail' along its spine"^[2], and not to list of cryptids since it's supposed to be a list of notable cryptids and a redirect to there tells someone nothing about "Muhuru." --tronvillain (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 22:25, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bot beat me to it by seconds. *chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Looks like a good candidate for a redirect to List of cryptids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a redirect to List of cryptids would not be productive as these are supposed to be notable entries only (i.e., having their own articles). I can't find a sufficiency of coverage for this one; seem to vaguely remember that Heuvelmans had it in his book, but can't check. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, per above. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe keep till a beter solution than putting it on the cryptid list. if there is no other solution then Redirect.(Bubblesorg (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC))Maybe not know[reply]

Who the what now? What's your argument? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No redirect, this fails miserably any notability guideline. Ifnord (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Drinnon, Dale A. (19 April 2011). "Muhuru, Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu and the Megacrocs of East Africa". Frontiers of Zoology.
^ Michael Newton (2009). Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra, and Other Elusive Creatures. ABC-CLIO. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-313-35906-4.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G6 technical deletion. I'll revert this action if anyone objects, but this seems to me to be uncontroversial cleanup and hence speedy is in order. SpinningSpark 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Kuala

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

Bear with me here.

A bunch of these lists went to a no consensus AFD recently. Basically, the topics (or many of them, at least) are notable. On the other hand, our coverage of precolonial West Africa is terrible and these lists are all referenced to a source deemed unreliable.

I have been one of the editors working to fix the problem. I created List of rulers of Liptako to replace one of the articles from that list. Because the Liptako article will (eventually, anyway; it's still awful) cover the area known as Liptako (broadly construed) rather than strictly just the former emirate called Liptako, I included the rulers of Koala, the previous kingdom in that area in the same list. I've finally been able to get access to the highest quality French-language scholarship on the topic and fleshed out the king lists (including the relatively minor second Koala kingdom). In doing so, I've essentially content forked another of the existing lists: List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Kuala.

There is no need to preserve the "Gurma Mossi" article for attribution, because I didn't refer to it in any way (and its referencing, as noted, isn't reliable, so no merger is possible). I don't want to redirect it to the list I've created, because the title is factually incorrect: Koala (or Kuala, if you're French) is a Gurma state... but it's not a Mossi state.

Really, this should be fairly uncontroversial, but this request doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, and because it survived an AFD it is technically invalid for PROD. So... here we are. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siad Barre's collective punishments

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

This article appears to be a POV fork of Isaaq genocide. A large portion of the content has been copied (without the necessary attribution) from that article, omitting the characterisation of the actions as genocide. The article creation came after the user first tried to rename the genocide article, then started an RfC on its title, then withdrew the RfC, and then commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia that "I was just editing the Isaaq genocide article, and the title is completely made up. The date of the event is completely made up too. I don't think these were an innocent mistakes. Rather, this was ideologically motivated as a form of pro-Somaliland secessionism/nationalism. This is clear wp:synthesis. I'm planning to move the bulk of the content to "Hargeisa massacre" later, since that title can be attested". Creating this article therefore appears to be an attempt to rename the genocide article by the backdoor. I suggest that the new article is deleted and if Thylacoop5 wants to rename Isaaq genocide, they follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to start the appropriate discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Creating the article smacks of ownership.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I didn't see the Somali rebellion article; I subsequently meant to move it there. So as the creator of this article, I condone its deletion. Thylacoop5 (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents at Parque Warner Madrid

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

Proposed for deletion because "A "list" consisting of one incident (in itself not a notable incident but a simple news event) doesn't make a notable subject." Prod removed after the addition of a very minor second "incident" sourced with some youtube clips, where a stunt show went somewhat wrong. WP:NOTNEWS, we are not a repository of routine nes coverage nor of lists with one barely notable incident and one utterly unremarkable one. If an amusement park is known for the many incidents or had a series of truly notable incidents, then by all means create a list for it. Otherwise, please don't bother. Fram (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and none of the incidents are significant enough to pass WP:NEVENT, especially with the depth of sources given (Youtube for example). Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Incidents at European amusement parks. Pburka (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Hotel incident I'd merge, but not the other one. Ajf773 (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One death in its sixteen years of operation. A short mention in Parque Warner Madrid works just as well; this is otherwise AMUSEMENTCRUFT with a helping of insulting boilerplate that assumes the reader doesn't understand what an amusement park accident is. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because two items aren't enough for a list article. —Kodiologist (t) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of events failing WP:NEVENT; not even WP:INHERITED wumbolo ^^^ 14:06, 2 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) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft domains

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

Purely original research, so significance or notability and generally unfit for an encyclopedia. WP:LISTCRUFT. Lordtobi (✉) 11:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't mind lists of significant things being in WP (so disagree with the nominator on that point), but with no sourcing this list isn't even reliable. Vadder (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT Acnetj (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not as notable as Trump's domain names, but there is coverage. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. wumbolo ^^^ 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This only covers a handful of domains, which does not warranet a three-page list of all domains owned by the company. Feel free to insert the info you can extract from those sources into the main Microsoft article, though. Lordtobi (✉) 14:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT & unnecessary.K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffman. I just cannot fathom the usefulness of this list to anyone. Ifnord (talk) 02:50, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Lacy

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

I did a decent trawling of local sources and failed to retrieve anything other than being mentioned as a trivial character in local theater-acts etc. and for partaking in a host of other routine stuff, in local dailies.Fails the subject notability guideline as well as our general notability guideline. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - With significant roles in 3 films, When a Man Rides Alone, The Wyoming Whirlwind, and Vanishing Men, appears to barely pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: were they significant roles? I am not even sure that they are sourced but, for example, I couldn't find her named in the cast for Vanishing Men at AFI etc and she appears to have been mostly little more than a part of the chorus in other stuff. Even the wordpress external link notes her as an obscure, unsuccessful bit-player, although as per the talk page I am not sure how much weight can be attached to that. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I meant 42nd Street. I didn't check VM and have no idea of how significant her role in that may have been. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 were apparently significant. While AFI doesn't list her in Vanishing Men, her role, that of Diane Nelson figures prominently in the plot synopsis. She's mentioned in articles about the film as well, such as The Film Daily. The other two films, she had leading roles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. I've just noticed that the significant role bit of NACTOR relies on the notability of the movie per NFILM, which has some sort of cascading effect. We do not even have articles for two of the films you mention (yet). So, if the films are not yet deemed notable then the cascade fails. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And should the cascade even exist? WP:NOTINHERITED. As someone has recently suggested on my talk page, we're becoming IMDb. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR Notability does not mean just having a wikipedia article it means it could qualify for one and those films seem to qualify as nationally reviewed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how significant was she? And which were nationally reviewed? And why does a national review make the film(s) notable? This would be a straight GNG fail and it is only the usual stupidity and navel-gazing of flimsy topic-specific guidelines that alter that. Some are better than others, of course, but NBOOK, NFILM and NACTOR really are piss-poor. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And was the review independent? The film and publishing worlds are notorious for mutual backscratching even today, as shown in almost every edition of Private Eye. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please can editors remind themselves that the criteria at WP:NACTOR, in common with all biography inclusion criteria, are considered additional - the General Notability Guideline still needs to be met. Head over to WP:NACTOR and scroll to the top. It's not an either/or scenario. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347, using the secondary criteria "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards," then yes, we can say that passing NACTOR can show notability. In order to establish NACTOR, we use the additional criteria of reliable sources to show the subject passes NACTOR. Notability is not black and white or "either or": there are shades of gray and we use all of the standards (as applicable) to decide as a group whether or not an article passes. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's from the paragraph entitled "Additional Criteria" and the paragraph immediately above it is the one I'm referring to. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is very minor. She does not pass the multiple significant roles in notable productions guidelines so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If someone is a lead in multiple films, and the notability of those films has been established, then it should be presumed that there would have been critical coverage/analysis of that lead's participation in multiple films. Lead roles in multiple notable movies means that WP:ATD can't be easily applied, and even a permastub article is somewhat useful and more pleasant than a permaredlink; WP is a hyperlinked encyclopedia. Her article really shouldn't have been created before one or both of the missing film articles were created/confirmed as notable, however, particularly since the sourcing used is poor (in particular, the Wordpress source that was a reference should not be used), and little is visible online. What RS information is there on her? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three starring roles in very obscure films do not satisfy NACTOR. The rest of her sparse work, some in films I actually heard of and have seen, is all uncredited, which says it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NPOV/NOR/V; has in-depth coverage in multiple RS over a long period of time both in her home state and outside. Kudos to Winged Blades of Godric, it does seem they made a good faith effort in their BEFORE. And Kudos to CaroleHenson for helping (continuing to help) clean the article up. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR#1 due to leading roles in Vanishing Men and When a Man Rides Alone. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we can agree that she meets WP:NACTOR, it's down to meeting general notability guidelines. Vanishing Men was the turning point for me, it's clearly notable. Ifnord (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ACTOR, significant roles in notable movies. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 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 redirect to Royal Military Police. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

253 Provost Company

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

Fails to meet the subject-specific notability guideline at WP:MILUNIT, and additionally fails to meet the General Notability Guideline as all mentions found during a WP:BEFORE search fail to pass the threshold of Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources - it's all based on press releases, information from recruiting sites or social media. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Redirect to RMP article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Military Police. Some fiction hits in BEFORE. Non-fiction does not pass GNG, well below MILUNIT standard.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Military Police. While a provost company could be independently notable, no evidence of that has been turned up on it or, for that matter, its parent unit, 4 Regiment RMP which redirects to Royal Military Police. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 23:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Petite Reine

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

This article was created by a well known sockpuppeteer, Alma Fordy. It was created by this user who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. There are not enough sources for this article. It also fails WP:GNG. Evil Idiot (talk) 15:10, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not always easy to determine whether a given source is offering significant coverage of the company, of Langmann, or of one of the works it produced (especially the complicated co-production credit for The Artist – and, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED and all that). But I think in the aggregate, there's enough. Most sources, predictably, are in French. This, from Le Figaro discusses the company's financial difficulties, so a potential article needn't be puffery. This, from Entreprendre gives a bit of history of the company from better times (back in 2015). Clearly, what we have here... isn't very good, but I think the topic is notable. Note that this article isn't eligible for CSD G5 as block evasion; although it was indeed created by serial sockpuppeteer Alma Fordy, it was created by the original account prior to the first blocks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 26 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]

keep Passes the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The coverage identified by Squeamish Ossifrage seems to be of a substantial enough nature to let the article pass GNG, though, I would agree it's probably right on the edge. And, the article does need to be cleaned-up (and aforementiond sources added). Chetsford (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Langmann, where most of the information already is. Topic may turn out to be notable, but work can still be done on it while it's a redirect (preferably in draft).Deb (talk) 08:29, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal weddings

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

Monarchies have existed for thousands of years. There have been millions of royal weddings. The article tells us that weddings of senior members of royal families are state occasions and attract national and international interest but then goes on to list weddings of "minor" royals and medieval marriage ceremonies that definitely did not attract any media attention. What could possibly be the point of this article anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. There's no particular need for this page, and as the nominator stated, there's been millions of royal weddings. Amsgearing (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but pare down to only notable weddings (i.e. those with articles) per WP:CLT for Category:Royal weddings and its subcats. It probably meets WP:LISTN too, though I didn't do any searches so I can't prove that. ansh 666 02:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm afraid I can't support deletion on this one. The WP:CLT component is satisfied and the topic is notable enough for WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the previous two editors. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:35, 26 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]

Keep Perfectly legit list. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 211, 12, 14. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 2 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) 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxton Ventures

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP & generally WP:TOOSOON, with $40M & 4 employees. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm in the process of updating this as well as the partners. This is a meaningful fund as it has two of the largest UK successes in recent times, Deliveroo and Darktrace and they have substantially grown assets over time. This fund is a peer to other funds included on Wikipedia such as US Firms Runa Capital, Baseline Ventures,Initialized Capital, Lerer Hippeau Ventures, Social Capital, Notion Capital, Passion Capital etc and is meaningful in the European market for its performance. Very few funds have completed investments into multiple billion dollar companies in Europe.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 20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of references, many of which are not trivial. The WSJ article goes in to a fair amount of depth as does the Business Post article. The company seems to be significant in its own right as well, not just a run-of-the mill company. I know this isn't valued at Wikipedia, but the creator of the article (Misterpottery) has done a lot of hard work in creating it, and seems to have also improved the article substantially since this discussion started. That should count for something. -Mparrault (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The argument of there are a lot of references is meaningless and does not count towards establishing notability. We need references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Mentioning "the WSJ article" or "the Business Port article" without providing links is not helpful and does nothing to forward your argument as nobody knows for sure what you are referring to. Can you perhaps post the links here? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current version as promotional. A new version can always be created, using sources unconnected to the company. "Mr Kniaz", indeed! Deb (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to meet WP:NCORP. As Deb notes, it could be recreated (hopefully without the promotional/?COI bits) if it becomes notable in the future. Ifnord (talk) 02:59, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chester McNulty

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

Upon taking a closer look at this article, there's really not much here. The two business articles don't mention him at all. A lot of the information is sourced from an Orlando Sentinel article about his son. A newspapers.com search brings up a few hits, so maybe there are historical sources out there, but there's another Chester McNulty as well in Kentucky, apparently. Most of the article is based on WP:OR from looking up family records. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails NPOL and not even reliably sourced. The only two rs are about a bank merger, not the subject.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was chair of the Florida Republican Party in addition to being the mayor. While the Sentinel article is not specifically about him it does go into some detail. The Newspapers.com articles should be investigated. What is unverified should be removed, however I think there is a solid stub here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a state party chair is not a sign of notability, especially considering that at the time McNulty was Florida Republican Party Chair the party had virtually no power in the state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As John Pack Lambert notes, party chairs don't fulfill the notability requirements of WP:NPOL. Ifnord (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expected that searching would turn up a lot of coverage of his career as a banker, political power, and was surprised to find so no WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:16, 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. Article clearly created about the wrong person, at the wrong title. Enigma^msg 16:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Holmes

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

There is no evidence of WP:Notability. The individual was killed while a candidate for the senate. –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting, but the only mention I can quickly find of him (the reference in the article) is trivial, and he doesn't have any presumptive notability. SportingFlyer talk 19:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, and with no broader coverage, fails the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything about him or the incident. A one line mention in a book is not sufficient to justify an article. The incident itself might be worth mentioning somewhere in wikipedia but not as a standalone article. Meters (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Joseph R. Holmes. See this entry which RegentsPark added to the list of references. See also [21]. So there are references available that demonstrate notability. Polyamorph (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the added information, it was for Joseph R. Holmes, who died in 1869. John R. Holmes died in 1892, although their stories are similar. I think that there is also confusion because Joseph R. Holmes' owner was John R. Homes, who died in 1857.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly talking about Joseph R. Holmes and not his owner, so the page should be moved there. In terms of notability, Holmes is very notable, see this excerpt from the Virginia encyclopedia "Several Virginia newspapers published long accounts of the incident, and papers in more than twenty other states and the District of Columbia excerpted or reprinted them, giving Holmes's death an exceptionally wide notoriety among many reports of white-on-black violence during the years after the Civil War."Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The owner was John H. Marshall. Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original source for the article, the WPA ~~article~~ book, states "John R. Holmes, a Negro candidate for State senator in 1892, was shot to death by a white man in Charlotte County."

Then, a user added content about Joseph R. Holmes who died in 1869 for his political activities in Charlotte County.

Are you saying, the WPA book was wrong? These are somehow the same person?–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update, WPA book, not article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But if this article is deleted I will create another for Joseph R. Holmes because they are notable. Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I would agree that Joseph is more notable. There are not a lot of reliable sources about him, but there is more - I count 4: 1 book that isn't snippet view, 2 websites and 1 newspaper article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and since this is a very old event I expect there to be offline sources, including the many newspapers that reported detailed accounts at the time which provide established notability per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the bit that has been surprising me. FloridaArmy has been banging on about how people should use newspapers.com and I would imagine that site is a go-to place for stuff like this ... yet they seem not to have used it themselves? Or is there actually nothing there? Or is that because the name is wrong? - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything for "John R. Holmes" at newspapers.com, but there is an article about "Joseph R. Holmes" regarding his death in 1869.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have created the article for Joseph R. Holmes.Polyamorph (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit that I have doubts that Joseph R. Holmes is notable. Being a member of a state constitutional convention is not generally in and of itself a sign of notability. However John R. Holmes, as only a candidate for office, is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joseph, perhaps not but significant coverage in reliable sources makes them notable.Polyamorph (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a few more books that mention his death in 1892,^[1]^[2]^[3] but judging by the snippet view, they do not tell us more than the WPA source. I searched for a possible WP:ATD-R target, and ... found him mentioned of all places in Virginia elections of 1869: "John R. Holmes, an African American, was assassinated while campaigning for a state senate seat." and was not surprised to see the addition was made by FA in Special:Diff/831941829/831942063. I have removed it, and I will leave it up to you who know the subject matter better to add a mention of Joseph R. Holmes if it is relevant, and maybe have a look at FA's additions and adjust the intro. I have moved the article back to Virginia gubernatorial election, 1869, a title that is consistent with other titles in Category:Virginia gubernatorial elections. Sam Sailor 08:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Virginia Writers' Project (1941). Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion. American guide series. Oxford University Press. p. 82. Retrieved May 31, 2018. John R. Holmes, a Negro candidate for State senator in 1892, was shot to death by a white man in Charlotte County. This act, described as 'a very extreme example of intimidation,' solved the dilemma for the district, since no other Negro ...
^ Williams, J.E. (1965). The Progres[s]ive Free Negroes in the United States Before Abraham Lincoln and After. p. 110. Retrieved May 31, 2018. There was, John R. Holmes a Negro candidate for State Senator in 1892, he was shot to death by a Klan white man in Charlotte County. This act was described as a very extreme example of intimidation, which solved the dilemma for the ...
^ Bennett, L.; Berry, L.H. (1979). I wouldn't take nothin' for my journey: two centuries of an Afro-American minister's family. Johnson Pub. Co. p. 89. Retrieved May 31, 2018. Violence and intimidation accelerated, and when John R. Holmes, a Negro candidate for State Senator in 1892, was shot to death by a white man in Charlotte County, no other Negro candidates presented themselves for election to State or ...

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GSC 03905-01870

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

Comprehensively fails WP:NASTRO. So faint and insignificant it isn't even in Simbad, and the only published research is the discovery paper. The article appears to be just promotion of a new discovery that has no notability whatsoever. Lithopsian (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read other astronomy articles and I think the article must be deleted. Awvazquez (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only meaningful source is Barquin's description, which pretty much meets the definition of WP:PRIMARY. Basically, he set out to look for an eclipsing binary in a delimited region of sky and found one. That's not notable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Delisle

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

Insufficiently referenced article about a minor league hockey player who does not have any strong claim to passing WP:NHOCKEY. His highest league play was in the Central Hockey League, a league which per WP:NHOCKEY/LA permits notability only under NHOCKEY #3 (preeminent honours such as all-time lead scorer or First Team All-Stars) -- but Delisle doesn't have any valid claim to passing that condition. This was tagged for prod a few days ago for that reason, but then deprodded earlier today on the grounds that it has "several sources" -- but it cites just two sources, both of which are the expected local team play coverage in his teams' local media and neither of which are about him in any non-trivial way, so they do not represent enough sourcing to hand him a "passes WP:GNG on the media coverage" exemption from having to pass NHOCKEY. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A pretty straight forward fail of both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. There are some sources but they are all very routine or very local. The best source I found was here which is rather poor primary coverage from his time at UMD. Maybe the individual who removed the PROD found more, didn't add them to the article though.18abruce (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per ~~WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT~~ ... oh, very well, a season and a half of undistinguished play in the mid/low-minors fails NHOCKEY by a country mile, no evidence the subject can or could pass the GNG. Let's have some applause for User:Editorofthewiki for a knee-jerk, time-wasting "ooh, look, sources exist" deprod. Ravenswing 11:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF? If i thought it wasnt worthy of prod, thats my prerogative. Do you want me to go back and critique something you did? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can find edits done so sloppily as to compare with thinking that "The Bats acquired two defensemen on the eve of the game, and both Daryl Lavoie and Dan Delisle played well as Austin roared to a 4-0 lead and held on for a 4-3 victory over the expansion IceRays in the Western Professional Hockey League opener Tuesday night in front of a crowd of 3,328 at Memorial Coliseum" is "significant coverage" to the subject meeting the GNG, be my guest. You'll forgive me, perhaps, for thinking that the prerogative to deprod at a tip of the keyboard comes with a responsibility to have taken the four seconds it takes to click on a link and glance at the material presented. I stand by my characterization. Ravenswing 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't have to be a WP:DICK about it though. You can just say "the sources are not substantial" and ease up on the personal attacks. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one should have had to say that the sources weren't substantial. You should have taken the trouble to find out one way or another before deprodding -- and it would've taken about a tenth the time to do that than you've chosen to spend huffing and puffing here. Ravenswing 20:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player. We seem to have a lot of articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 3 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) 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedparty

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

No nontrivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability exists. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Vihar

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

The article is about a locality within a city. While WP:GEOLAND is applicable to the city, it is not applicable to the internal regions. General notability criteria is applicable to such areas.

The subject fails WP:GNG. Just another residential area. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a really small area. Delhi is a city which contains the locality called Rohini, Delhi. Rohini is notable and large enough to merit an article. Rohini is divided into sectors and Deep Vihar is an area within Rohini Sector 24. This is a really small area (a sub division of a sector) and it doesn't deserve an article. This is similar to what is the normal practice for Delhi geographical articles. We keep articles about localities, but not about the individual "sectors" and "pockets". For example Dwarka, Delhi has an article, but the constituent sectors do not have their own articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
erm... Not that it matters, but just to point out: Rohini is a city within Delhi state [or National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT)], and Dwarka is a subcity. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamekiran Rohini is not a city. There are no "cities" in Delhi (as in NCT Delhi). Officially there are only districts and each district has sub-districts (for municipal purposes). The term "sub-city" is generally used in parallel to the municipal subdivisions and is generally used to refer certain planned residential areas. Both Rohini and Dwarka are considered "sub-cities".--DreamLinker (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Note that two of the present sources are unreliable per discussions at WP:RSN and the third is tangential. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 15

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

The article is about a locality within a (Sonipat) city. While WP:GEOLAND is applicable to the city, it is not applicable to the internal regions. General notability criteria is applicable to such areas.

The subject fails WP:GNG. Just another residential area. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article claims the locality is famous but there is no evidence of that that justifies a standalone article. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a small area in Sonipat. Unless there is some other claim to notability, sectors of this size are not notable. I am also concerned that the title is ambiguous.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:52, 2 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 Deleted by JzG on 22:45, 4 June 2018 (G5). Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

99bitcoins

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

Lot's of references but nothing that adds up to WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass GNG, let along the revamped CORPDEPTH - sourcing in the article is mainly to poor sources (with the exception of Bloomberg) and many of them just mention 99 in a passing fashion or with a random quote from them. BEFORE doesn't show much more.Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a run of the mill website. This page is little more than spam. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard advertising and rank abuse of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 22:13, 4 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) Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Union List of Artist Names

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

Article on a database created by an editor with little or no history other than creating this and linking the database to articles - i.e. likely promotional editing. No inline sources, no independent sources at all, and a quick Google didn't find any. There are some hits for the name, but any description is always the same boilerplate presumably supplied by the source. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has been here ten years, and averages over 100 hits a day, despite commonly used names like "Getty list" apparently not redirecting. The database, which took over an older dead tree one, is now accepted as the best global source on the topic. Can this be Wikidata envy? It's hard to think of a reason for this foolish nom otherwise. The Getty list certainly shows how inadequate Wikidata is over the same area. Searches just on the official name are not good enough - at the least "ULAN", "Getty list" and "Getty List of Artist Names" need to be done. Frankly your "quick Google" technique needs improving! Here's a book source with extended coverage, another, and another, another short mention, another, and another. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hit count is undoubtedly skewed by it being in the authority control template (which has several questionable entries). It's nothing to do with Wikidata envy and 100% to do with an absence of reliable independent sources. I found several of thsioe books (haven't checked them all yet) and to use [22] as an example, it's a directory entry with the same blurb as appears on various websites. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then you'd better read the others, if that doesn't take up too much of your valuable time. That one (one of the shorter ones) is not a "directory entry" but an extract from an academic book on how to get information on art. I don't know quite what coverage you think there could be on an arts-related database. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the ones I found in a search, you turned up a couple more, which I will review. It is interesting that this article seems to have been created by a spammer though. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited since 2009, and may well have been a Getty employee, or otherwise related. But these are category-killer databases, especially as they are free, and worth articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ULAN is notable, the article is factual, neutral and stable. The ULAN itself, ironcally, is actually quite useful in AfDs. Deletion of the article would serve no real purpose, and be a detriment to our readers. Vexations (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I just added a source; many more can be found. Ewulp (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notwithstanding dodgy authorship. Suggests a notable and significant resource. Couple of good sources, tout est bon. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald F. Campbell

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources. Only source is IMDb, which lists a number of TV documentaries, none of which seem really notable. Rogermx (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO failure, the source cited (IMDb) is user-generated and thus not reliable. A search turned up nothing significant.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no source on the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Leamington Spa Bach Choir

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

This seems like a not-particularly-notable amateur choir, and I don't see much evidence that it satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there do not seem to be independent sources supporting notability. We only get listings, announcements, and such, in local outlets. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:48, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files

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

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

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

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

Non-notable book from a non-notable author published by a minor publisher (who partly function as a vanity publisher, although it is not clear which books are vanity published and which ones not). References are to unreliable sources, in-passing, or to the book itself. Fails WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My articles have received continued attacks by two specific wikipedia members User:wikitgresito & User:RandyKitten. I have proved endlessly they fit in with Wikipedia’s criteria and I believe these are personal attacks on me due to being able to supply hard evidence against the claims made. The above coverage on A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files is in ABC certified news publications. ABC is the media industry’s stamp of trust. ABC deliver industry-agreed standards for media brand measurement across print, digital and events. They also verify data, processes and good practice to industry-agreed standards. Since the continued vandalism of my Wikipedia pages I have dropped an email to ABC & highlighted the statements made about my uploads & as soon as I hear back I will post there response here with there approval.LisaHadley2018 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing fellow editors of "personal attacks" will not advance your case for keeping the contested article. Submitting for deletion a number of articles you created is not a "personal attack." See here for what is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thanks for nominating this, RK, I thought of doing so myself earlier today. No sign whatsoever that this meets WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG, and it appears to be part of a small walled garden of articles about the author and his books. Wikipedia has criteria for reliable sources, and "ABC certified" is not one of them - besides, a press release or churnalism in a highly reliable source would still not be something we'd use to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any reliable secondary references that would make this work notable. Cheers Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment u|bonadea I must highlight unless you work within the media & unless you have read the articles attached to my citations in full you can’t selectively decided the notability factor of the publication online, in-print or its topic because it wasn’t on your radar. Please read ABC website & it will highlight the extreme differences between highly reliable sources and none reliable, which fit into Wikipedia’s criteria of inclusion as well. Press release coverage would run similarly, both in print editorial pieces on A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files are entirely different and both highlight the article’s as EXCLUSIVES. I’m happy to include more secondary reference and will gianvitoscaringi LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person in support for my The Complete History of The Howling has highlighted ABC is supported by the PPA which is the professional publishers association. I will be calling the contact at the agency for advice on this situation. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple reliable secondary sources in the article itself. Obvious keep. Emass100 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Emass100 huge thank you for your support this means allot. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom. Pointing to sources that are not more reliable than those in the article does not make the subject notable. I am sorry for the page creator who seems to be upset but this is our established policy. wikitigresito (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: Multiple reliable sources and secondary sources in the article itself.Activist838 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)—~~ Activist838 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A sockpuppetry investigation has been opened. -The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG - none of the sources are independent book reviews, and many of them appear to cover of the topic the book is on, not the book itself. SportingFlyer talk 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHeat Magazine and Now Magazine discuss A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files and include an exclusive interview with the books author about his book. Radar Online solely discusses the book's claims. There are multiple reliable sources and secondary sources in the article itself. Activist838 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note - I have semiprotected this page due to the rather excessive amounts of sockpuppetry and disruption. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and scorch the earth. No independent reliable sourcing. Most of the sources are utter and unredeemable crap -- one is self-published rubbish explaining the role of the Illuminati in Murphy's death; another runs "news stories" like "36 Infamous Celebrity Camel Toes You Can't Unsee" and "Single & Ready To Mingle! J-Law Wants Amy Schumer To Set Her Up". Worthless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in the Inquisitr, The Hollywood Gossip, and the like not sufficient for GNG/NBOOk.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max E. Johnson

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

Cant see anything here that suggests this individual passes WP:GNG. Just another businessman with connections. TheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be too soon for the subject to meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)¡[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notability is by association. Deb (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but should probably draftify. Some notable mention in RS but currently seems to be in something of an WP:INHERIT limbo. BelBivDov (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Try as I might there's only very little substance I can find. -The Gnome (talk) 20:28, 1 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 clear. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Currie McDaniel

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

Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage, so they don't meet WP:GNG. None of her academic posts meet WP:ACADEMICS standards, and her citation count is quite low. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article definitely does not have enough sources for reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggRoll97 (talk • contribs)
Comment. There seems to be more under the name "Ruth Douglas Currie" (though still not much) than under this title - which is wrong in any case as her books show her as "Ruth Currie-McDaniel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether sources are present in the article as it stands now is irrelevant for judging notability at AfD; sources count if they exist, even if they don't happen to be included in the current draft. For an academic working (a) in the humanities and (b) in the pre-Internet era (her first book was apparently in 1987), Google Scholar is going to be pretty useless — citation counts there won't indicate much one way or the other. I turned up 8 scholarly reviews of 2 books without trouble, which is enough to satisfy me that she passes WP:CREATIVE: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think 11 reviews of two of her books should be enough for WP:AUTHOR. Thanks to Megalibrarygirl for incorporating the reviews into the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR with substantive reviews of her books, as mentioned at this AfD and already in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies NAUTHOR per coverage of her books in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NAUTHOR. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LOL, I added the references found by XOR'easter to the article but forgot to !vote. Passes NAUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOMP, STOMP, STOMP keep (WP:AUTHOR, many reviews), STOMP, STOMP, STOMP. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:NAUTHOR. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 3 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. Consensus is that there is no evidence they are a clan, and if they are there is no evidence that they are notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noon clan

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

Barely any content, and the fact remains that the article only contains one source. I think that this article would fall under WP:GNG, a Wikipedia rule regarding content and sources in an article. EggRoll97 11:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps someone from Pakistan could try to find more sources. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly this is an exceptionally prominent family in Pakistan. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, could you please add references to the clan prominence (and not to that of the individuals)? Thanks, Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Noon+clan"+pakistan&dq="Noon+clan"+pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtqNOExKvbAhVJ6YMKHUD8A0kQ6AEILzAB This source discusses the "clan" and searching "Noon family" Pakistan turns up others on Google Books. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the linked source discuss them as a clan, as opposed to people bearing the name? I can only see snippet view. Of course, Noon is also a name found elsewhere in the world, used by people who definitely have nothing to do with a clan of Pakistan, as also is the spelling Noone. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 112. This source is also referred to as discussing the clan (not sure if it uses the word clan or family, haven't read it). FloridaArmy (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But is it discussing them as a clan or just using clan as a passing mention in the informal sense (group of people etc)? I found the snippet for the page you gave and, as is common with snippets, I have no context for the use of the word. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of Noon from that article: For example, it took a Noon on the PPP ticket to defeat the "official" Noon-Tiwana clan candidate in a Sargodha seat. So it does say "Noon-Tiwana clan", FWIW. But, does a mere passing mention, that too combined with another name, satisfy GNG?--regentspark (comment) 22:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article has a chequered history, eg: Noon family and Noon (Pashtun tribe). At worst, it could be a set-index of people bearing the name Noon. However, associating those people with an alleged clan/tribe can be dodgy unless they have self-identified (see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some background to this). - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only thing I could find was a link to a disallowed site, which doesn't seem to match what's in the article. Deb (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found 4 links on a major Pakistani English-language newspaper Dawn. I am chipping in to do my share, expanded the article with 5 new references. Will try to do more tomorrow, made it a stub article so we can expand it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you have added so far just says certain people bear the name. The sources are not discussing the clan as a clan. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Clan" is a stretch. [31],[32] merely assert that there is a family with the last name Noon. [33] asserts that there exists a person with a last name Noon. [34] asserts that there are two people with Noon as a last name. So that leaves us with a few people called Noon and that doesn't constitute a clan, notable or otherwise. --regentspark (comment) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 3 says "He had carried on the Noon family’s political legacy with great integrity. He was former prime minister Feroz Khan Noon’s cousin. He retired from active politics in the late 1970s while introducing his son Malik Amjad Ali Noon into the field." And your 4 says "Malik Amjad Ali Noon and his father Malik Anwer Ali Noon mostly live in their hometown village Ali Pur Noon. The Noon family has 27 villages in Tehsil [Bhalwal]: Nurpur Noon, Sultan Pur Noon and Sardar Pur Noon, among others. Malik Feroz Khan Noon ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan was also a prominent member of the Noon family." I hadn't seen those sources so they are in addition to those noted above. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that all we have is a few people with the name "Noon". That doesn't create a prominent clan. The few prominent people can be included in the disambiguation page Noon_(disambiguation). You need to show that the clan is notable (and that it is actually a "clan" whatever that means). For example, is Noon a subcaste or a tribe? The mere existence of a few people, prominent or not, with a last name is not sufficient. --regentspark (comment) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Transforming family into a clan/tribe/caste is clearly into territory of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the Noon clan of families and landowners are spread all over Pakistani Punjab province as FloridaArmy mentioned above after reading the sourced material and according to my sourced material that I had used to edit and improve the article on 29 May 2018. How do you know 'Noons' are just a few people? When they live and are spread all over the province of Punjab, Pakistan in the thousands, they certainly make a clan. User talk:Winged Blades of Godric went ahead and removed all my references and content from this improved article on 30 May 2018 and added a unreferenced template on top of the article. I prefer not to engage in an edit war with you, Winged Blades, but to be fair and balanced, I would like the closing administrator to see and read my edited article from 29 May 2018 before he/she makes their decision about this article. So I am asking you to please restore my 4 references from Dawn (newspaper) and content. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another thought of mine is that...there are several large villages named after Noon clan with articles already on Wikipedia ...Alipur Noon, Sultan Pur Noon and some villages without Wiki articles like Nurpur Noon and Sardar Pur Noon in different areas of Pakistani Punjab province - see this GoogleBooks link. In my view, after reading the sourced materials, the large extended Noon clan's history goes back to the 19th century settlements (several large villages in different areas of Punjab). Over at least a period of a century, they have grown in numbers and have formed a Noon clan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um. That would be original research. Unless you can find a source that says that the many villages joined together to form a clan. --regentspark (comment) 00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Noon-Tiwana" faction of which Malik Feroz Khan Noon was a member may be encyclopedic, but the Noon clan as a family group seems to fail NOTINDISCRIMINATORY and NOR/SYNTH. If the article were about the Noon-Tiwana group, I might !vote rename/merge/redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the understanding that this deletion shouldn't be held against a properly-referenced article on traditional Thai hairstyles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient hairstyles in Thailand

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ancient hairstyles in Thailand

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

nn, no illustration or context, and the language is an impenetrable knot. Does not exist on other Wikis including the Thai one Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired AFD.2001:A61:4E6:C500:3115:48CF:357:2E52 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid topic. There are some references in the article now. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has three refs, all in Thai and all somewhat dodgy. As this is the English WP, I'd say it has no refs. I say delete it and go with the Thai version if some cogent refs can be found. BTW, the word "ancient" does not mean 19th century, or 18th, or 17th, or even 16th, but long before that. Change the title or find refs that support "ancient". Seligne (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep! Since when the language of the references is a problem? EnWiki serves and covers the entire world. I thank those who translated the articles and found references, instead. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's telling that our Thai colleagues have not seen fit to publish this article in Thai. Most persons come to the English language WP expecting to see English text and sources. Thai refs are fine, especially as the subject matter is Thai. So are German, Italian, et al., but exclusively? I have a hunch you have not looked at the refs. Seligne (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where on Wiki it states that references cannot be all in a different language. Your reason for delete does not stand. What for do we translate articles from other wikis, than? Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that different language ref are a reason to delete? I did not. But when the cites are in a language or languages that depart from the language of the WP language, it's a red flag. The article sucks, the refs suck; the title sucks. While it may be a worthy topic (I have my doubts), as it stands it is a discredit to WP. Seligne (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in different language is not a reason to delete. I would like to request a Thai reader to check the third reference to be sure it refers to ancient and not simply "traditional" hairstyles. Egaoblai (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. No one has said that different language refs are a reason for deletion. Seligne (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I find nothing about "Song Co Dong", "Ma Had Thai", or "Dok Kra Tum" except on Wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone can provide the Thai transliteration and a credible source that these terms are in use, all of the content should be deleted. The topic of Traditional hairstyles in Thailand is probably notable; I see enough mentions in scholarly works about that. The references are very, very low-quality; the Kapook one is likely sourced to Wikipedia and the Phahurat one looks like content-spam to promote an online store. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the image at this link, "Song Co Dong" is the top left image, "Ma Had Thai" is the top right image, and "Dok Kra Tum" is middle right. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ridiculously slow at finding Thai letters and inputting them but dok kra tum is apparently ดอกกระทุ่ม. This seems to be a dictionary definition - [35] but, while I can transliterate Thai and read a few basic words, I certainly cannot read this. There certainly seem to be a lot of sources with which an article could be constructed... [36] Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was created by a one-time editor, probably as part of an EFL school project. References are indeed poor, and the writing isn't good, but I'm not quite convinced this falls into WP:TNT territory (which seems to be the only valid reason to delete here). At the very least it needs to be renamed, to something probably with traditional or historical rather than ancient as the adjective. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is exceedingly poor, and the article is nearly unintelligible. Perhaps an article could be written on this topic, but we would need to start from scratch. Thai sources are fine as a general matter, but these Thai sources appear to be garbage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that all the sources are in Thai is not an issue. There's no requirement for sources to be in English. Likewise, the fact that the writing quality is poor is also not a reason to delete. The problem is that none of the three sources appear to be WP:RS. It's hard to tell for sure since I'm working off the auto-translations, but they looks like blogs and/or websites for hair salons. If somebody can find better sources, I don't see any fundamental reason why this topic couldn't be the basis of an encyclopedia article, but with what we've got, it fails WP:N and maybe even WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Selakovic

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

Total puff piece, sources either not WP:RS or just examples of where he's served as spokesman in his career or for political parties. He's not the subject. Heliotom (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this CV. Even if we take reliability of sources at face value (and there's a lot of barrel-scraping for sources), in sum, he's notable for being.. what? A Jack of all trades? Even if he gets selected for an ambassador eventually, it's not an automatic pass for notability. No such user (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of PR type articles on PR people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gajra. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poolajada

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

nn, unreferenced for 2 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gajra and merge anything than can be sourced. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gajra per FloridaArmy. From looking at photos, Poolajada seems to be a distinct variation of Gajra, so would be good for any usable content to be merged. Cesdeva ^(talk) 09:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ochoa

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable mayor, no sourcing in the article. A WP:BEFORE search does bring up several local sources that aren't really about him as a mayor as his son was convicted of murder. Other sources appear WP:MILL routine local government type sources. Second nomination for this article name, but first deletion appears to be a different Joe Ochoa. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 07:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails NPOL and doesn't inherit notability from his son--Rusf10 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing from the city's own website is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at present. Deb (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors are not de facto notable, and this guy has less notability than many. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Edinburg TX is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 4 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. Consensus is that while notability is not temporary, this topic is not encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E, in that coverage was covered only for a very brief time and as a novelty, not for any impact on culture or any given field of study. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Perebal

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

Lack of real notability. Ten lauguages in eight more than I speak with any degreeof fluency, but for a linguis it is not a remarkable number; the principal ref Prens Libre is a run of the mill human interest story and I imagine the BBC Spanish service is a retread based on the Prens Libre story. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I find the whole gee-whiz-somebody-who-speaks-multiple-languages thing uninteresting personally, BBC and Prensa Libre are reliable sources, and the coverage seems significant. Merge to List of polyglots weak keep, I guess. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List of polyglots require that the entries have a Wikipedia article. Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What has generated interest in his story is that he is not a linguist, but a private security guard (a minimum wage job around these parts) with little formal education. I'm still considering what to do with the article, though... –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1. The topic meets the general notability guideline. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] so it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.

2. The topic meets the people notability guideline. The person is worthy of notice or note, remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It is my opinion that it is highly unusual, remarkable, interesting and maybe even unprecedented that a security guard in Guatemala learns ten languages. Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a polyglot is not a particularly remarkable thing (and it does not make a person a linguist - sorry, but that terminological point is not unimportant, and most linguists are not polyglots). Yes, speaking ten languages is impressive, but that is again not a criterion for notability. I do not see that GNG is met based on the sources presented above. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The remarkable thing is that he was a security guard, who usually gets paid minimum wage, working in a repair shop in a seedy part of town and managed to learn basically by himself many foreign languages. And as proof of how remarkable that is he was a featured story in many media outlets, even internationally. Please tell me how you do not see the sources I posted as meeting the GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is the remarkable thing about him, please say so in the article. As the wording stands, it doesn't make a claim of significance. If you'd actually written what you wrote here, this might not have come to a deletion debate. Deb (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right and I actually thought about it when I created the article. I have updated the article based on your suggestion.Thinker78 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "remarkable" isn't a reason for keeping the article, especially since it is always a matter of personal opinion. Of the sources provided (above and in the article), the prensalibre.com one is the only independent source with more than brief coverage of the person. Make no mistake, I think it is a wonderful thing that people learn more languages, but if we actually read the sources, it becomes obvious that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is false - he speaks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Quiché, which is six languages of which four are rather closely related, and has a smattering of four other languages. The main story in the source is about him getting a scholarship to study German - again, that is great, his achievements and enthusiasm make me truly happy, but that does not make him notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "remarkable" because you were talking about not being remarkable, but the topic is notable as well as I have submitted evidence about in the form of reliable sources. According to the GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" ."Brief" is wording that is not included in the GNG.

You said that the "if we actually read the sources, it becomes obvious that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is false - he speaks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Quiché, which is six languages of which four are rather closely related, and has a smattering of four other languages". I clearly stated that he speaks " ten languages with different degrees of fluency" and that is according to the sources (contained in the article) which I will quote "Perebal, quien habla 10 idiomas" (Spanish: "Perebal, who talks 10 languages"), "Indicó que habla inglés, italiano, francés, portugués, castellano y quiché; además, en fase intermedio domina el alemán, ruso, japonés y mandarín" (Spanish: "He indicated that he talks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and K'iche'; in addition, in intermediate phase he dominates the German, Russian, Japanese and Mandarin").^[5] Prensa Libre has multiple articles about the subject, not just the one where he is going to study German. I will go through the other sources I provided:

The BBC. It is an independent source from the subject and a reliable source. It may not be a long article but is not just a passing mention either, so I believe it is significant coverage that the BBC had a full article just for him, addressing the topic directly and in detail, where information is given to us about his sex, his age, a job offer made to him, the languages he talks and that it even features a dedicated video showcasing languages that he speaks.

The YouTube video published by Univision's "Despierta America" (which is a variety morning show) is I believe a primary source because it is an interview of the subject, but which use as a source, if I'm not mistaken, is not against Wikipedia's policies. It is nevertheless independent from the subject, a reliable source, and covers the subject directly and in detail.

Canal6 is a reliable source and independent from the subject. It features a dedicated article to the subject, where it is addressed directly and in detail.

ChapinTV is a reliable source and independent from the subject. The article I provided is one of a series dedicated solely to him,^[6] and so the subject is addressed directly and in detail.

Gente d'Italia is independent from the subject and seems to be a reliable source. RAI (the Italian state-owned broadcaster) has an article about Gente d'Italia.^[7] Gente d'Italia's article about the subject is dedicated to it and addresses it directly and in detail. Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the people notability guideline and actually remarkable is one of its thresholds to determine notability, so being remarkable is indeed a reason to keep the article. Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as noted above and coted in article. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really that substantial. It's an interesting but fundamentally run of the mill human interest story which, once published once, has generated o flurry of copycat coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total case of trivial coverage with no substance to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How come you say "trivial coverage"? It actually has substantial coverage. You only need to see that the subject has multiple coverage by the same sources like Prensa Libre and ChapinTV. That is not trivial. Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial. Look at any news source, you'll se trivial feel-good human interest stories. these do not make the subject notable, and to repeat myself, jounos being lazy will pick up stories from other sources, hence a cascade of repeats of the same story. It's like crimes, which generate news coverage but are generally not notable unless there is significanyt ongoing coveage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. We want biographies of people with enduring notability, not perma-stubs on the ten-minutes-of-fame of someone who will likely never be written about again. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". But at this point you don't know and can't know whether the subject will have an enduring notability. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." WP:BIO1E refers specifically to events not achievements. The subject in this case is notable because of his remarkable achievement of being a security guard working in a seedy part of town in Guatemala and learning by himself many foreign languages. He was not involved in any event. According to WP:BIO, "...the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice'... or 'note'... – that is, 'remarkable'... or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." The sources I provided prove very much that the person is worthy of notice, remarkable, significant, interesting and unusual enough. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 26 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 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Admin note) As Thinker78 believes that my closing of this AfD as delete was in error, I am reopening and relisting this AfD as a courtesy. You will find the relevant discussion here. A Train^talk 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I basically agree with User:Joe Roe. This is a bio of someone who got a minor flurry of attention for fifteen minutes but no enduring notability. Likely to remain a permastub indefinitely. Reyk _YO! 07:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete or userspace for more drafting (Thinker78 has IDed at least one source, an Mexican interview, not used in the article yet). Striking option not viable: ~~Replace with a concise entry in List of polyglots~~ (since it's verifiable information, so we need not expunge even the mention of him). I agree with the N, NOTNEWS, NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and BIO1E arguments: while there's a small amount of coverage, most of it's trivial, and the one piece that is not is focused on him getting a scholarship and on the "gee whiz" aspect (i.e. people being prejudicially surprised that a security guard isn't a dullard). This isn't the enduring notability we're looking for. Four of the six languages he's actually competent in are closely related in vocabulary and grammar, and a fifth (English) derives much of its vocabulary from one of those four (French). So there's just really not much there, from an encyclopedic perspective, even if it's a fun human-interest story. Honestly, it probably takes more time and devotion to become a top-100, national-class pool (billiards) player or skateboarder, yet such people are not notable (and often have more coverage, at least in the specialist press like pool and skating magazines). This is a borderline case, and while I tend to lean inclusionist, I do so primarily on the basis of likelihood that the subject will have more coverage later and increased relevance to the public. I'm skeptical in this case, because I think even if he learns Romanian, Galician, and Catalan over the next few years, more detailed coverage isn't likely because the story hasn't really changed at all from a journalistic or public perspective, and if it doesn't and there's not more coverage then there's no encyclopedic story to tell, either. That is, Perebal doesn't really matter to the general public on any segment of the world stage, more than the next random person matters (and by a certain age, most of us are quite competent at one or more things). He's simply had his 15 minutes (in primarily local- or regional-interest publication). And good for him; too bad we don't have more news coverage of interesting people who aren't criminals or involved in a scandal. But, really, by 2020, no one will remember or care other than Perebal's friends and family, and collectors of language- or guard-related trivia. It's not really fair, perhaps, but the "one hit wonder" band that charted with a top-10 hit in 1987 and then broke up remains notable because their song still gets played and people still care enough to want to know about the band. That won't be true of the obscure guy who "knows" 10 languages. Nothing is going to make him stick in the public mind (unless he becomes more notable for some other reason, like saving the life of the Guatemalan president, or winning that international pool and skateboarding biathlon :-). In short, if we don't delete this now, we'll delete it in a few years, after his obscurity becomes more obviously opaque with time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC); revised: 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC); revised again: 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- SMcCandlish I'm not understanding BIO1E very well. I thought it applied only to people notable for only one event. The subject is not related to any event that I know of. How does it apply here? Thinker78 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, the subject has many more articles about himself in Prensa Libre and ChapinTV, not just the ones I mention, and to be included in the List of polyglots, the subject needs to have an article in Wikipedia. Thinker78 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Answering on the talk page; I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the AfD. Also covered in more detail here. Short version: "event" doesn't have a narrow definition in BIO1E, though it's not the strongest argument presented here anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete . Nonnotable feat. 15 minutes of fame in the news, but there are no really reliable sources which discuss his level of mastery of the languages. I myself can say hello and thank you in 37 languages (thanks, Wikipedia :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject got significant news coverage, got coverage even in international media, in Mexico,^[8] Honduras,^[9] the BBC^[10] and an Italian international publication;^[11] got coverage multiple times continuously for about a month in at least two national sources, Prensa Libre and ChapinTV, from April 2018^[12]^[13] to May 2018.^[14]^[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already said that, Thinker78. And replied to almost every comment in this discussion. I think we know what your position is at this point. It's time to let the process happen (again). – Joe (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason that link of Bludgeon is only an essay. Some editors can come up with the most unreasonable things. That essay is just a wish to bludgeon minority views out of a full debate. Besides, I didn't point out previously the international nature of the sources or the continuous coverage of the subject. In fact, I added this comment because of my discussion with SMcCandlish, who was not aware of the international origin of the sources and thought all the sources were local. Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sigh I entirely fail to see why this afd has been reopened, simply because one editor feels passionately about it. Well of course they do, they wrote the page. Despite this, they seem to be unwilling to update the article to reflect changes inn Senor Perebal's circunstances, altho they can come up with a ref to back up the info.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if I hadn't reopened this AfD, I'd bet $20 that Thinker78 would have just taken it to WP:DRV. Someone's time was going to get wasted, regardless. A Train^talk 16:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, I didn't correct the information in the article because I already reverted your addition so I didn't want to be seen as if I was edit warring. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually changing the content rather than reverting would not be edit warring, it would be constructive. The article ref dsays he is a security guard; you have a ref saying he now does something else. Why not use your time constructively by improving this (imo doomed))article.TheLongTone (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Train, you are right, I would have, but the house didn't take your bet, so you are left without the $20 win. I have to say that the reopening made the consensus more clear, because the media interviews event reasoning did not provide much clarity and I'm still puzzled about it. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, the earlier sources stated that he was at the time a security guard but the story evolved and the source I showed you that indicates he is no longer a security guard is a more recent one. At this point I don't know what you want in the article so if I make further edits that you don't like you probably will do a manual revert, changing the content back as it was. So to avoid the impression that I am edit warring I will let other editors (including you) change it if they so want or let it stay as it is, even though it currently contains untrue information. Thinker78 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, this is a classical case of 15 min of local fame. The subject do not pass per WP:GNG by being a polyglot alone and thus has no encyclopedic value. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5: created by a sock of User:Dyhp612. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violetta Tyurkina

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

Non-notable pageant contestant. All claims of notability are going off of assumptions that she'll represent Russia in Miss Universe 2018. There is no confirmation from the Miss Russia Organization that this will happen, people are just assuming because it has happened occasionally in the past when Miss Universe conflicts with Miss World. The article is poorly sourced anyways, and Tyurkina should not have an article unless she is confirmed as the Miss Universe representative or a different reason for notability arises. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 07:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Tauer

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

If kept, this article needs to be cleaned up pretty well. There are a couple good potential sources about him after he left office: [37] [38] [39] The other articles I can find about him are WP:MILL articles which discuss the inner workings of city council or are governmental press releases - there's not much else out there about him specifically apart from him getting quoted in an article about something city-related. In my opinion he fails WP:GNG, as does his father who was also mayor of Aurora, Paul Tauer, so I'm bringing it here before taking an ax to what's currently in the article. (EDIT: this is an AfD for Ed Tauer ONLY.) SportingFlyer talk 05:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another case of people confusing title for function. Aurora is a council-manager city. The city is run by the city manager, not the mayor. The title of mayor is held by a person elected to that office who is de facto council president, but since he is not chosen as such by the council, may or may not have any power. He is really no more powerful than any other member of the city council. This city is not large enough that council members are default notable, and we lack sourcing to show that he is truly significant. Too often in cases like this people confuse name dropping for actual coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not handed an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2 in council-manager cities regardless of their size — a mayor's ability to qualify for the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment is conditional on the mayoralty of that city being a directly elected executive position, not a ceremonial one whose power is subordinate to the city manager's — but this is referenced nowhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 4 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pantho Rahaman

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

Winner of National ICT Award is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Saqib (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Information and Communication Technology Awards an National award given by the Bangladesh government! And he is the winner of this award. NC Hasive • talk • 13:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The award itself is of dubious notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies as WP:ANYBIO#1. Per WP:SIGCOV, coverage does not have to be in English to qualify as demonstrating notability and the sources for the award are in some of the largest media sources for Bangladesh. Articles in the subject article also demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG, demonstrating significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. ~!Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Wenatchee, Washington

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

A small city of 30,000 with only two buildings over 100 feet in height, and only two entries notable enough for standalone articles (a hockey arena and a courthouse). Similar lists for cities that are a magnitude larger have been deleted or merged in years past (e.g. Fargo, Burlington, Missoula, Lubbock).

PROD was previously declined, on the basis that the metro area has 116,000 people (stretched over two large counties). Sounder Bruce 04:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom. The city just isn't big enough, nor notable for tall buildings, to warrant such a list. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And those buildings aren't really tall either, compared to cities well known for tall buildings like New York or Hong Kong. Acnetj (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these are run of the mill buildings in a run of the mill town. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't there a List of tallest buildings in Washington or similar list to which this could be merged/redirected? What can be merged to Wenatchee, Washington? We have an obligation to consider wp:ATDs.

Also, the number one building in this list, at 102 Wenatchee, is a contributing building in an NRHP historic district, Downtown Wenatchee Historic District, and its photo and information could/should be merged there. The NRHP historic district article does not note it being a tallest building. Perhaps other information in the list article can be merged elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- A list of tallest buildings in the state (like this one) would basically be a duplicate of List of tallest buildings in Seattle, with a few entries from Bellevue sprinkled in at the bottom. A list of the non-utility buildings would be a good foundation for a "Cityscape" section in the Wenatchee article. Other than that, none of the information is really worth keeping. Sounder Bruce 00:22, 4 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azizulhind urdu

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

Questionable-notability article about a newspaper that has sat for several years with few edits, no sources and many tags for cleanup. Might be salvageable, but would need a fundamental rewrite. Nanophosis (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just removed a large chunk of rambling, POV copyvio pasted from a blog. If the article passed AFD, it should be moved to Azizulhind, as no disambiguation is needed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the article should really be about the publisher Aziz Burney. My searches came up with quite a bit about him and his role as editor of newspapers including before the existence of this one which he also publishes. There was also a lot of controversy about a book he published. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is just a promotional piece as it stands. Deb (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject not meeting the required notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all newspapers are notable. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 3 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 Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji. A line or two ought be added but it shall be well-sourced.In light of the sourcing issues, I don't feel comfortable about calling an outright merge and this might be construed as more of a redirect stuff...... (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frainy Bomanji

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I can't find independent reliable sources about her to show her notability, so we're left a batch of non RS refs (Daily Mail, a user-generated genealogy site, etc), local media, mentions in passing (articles about her former house being sold, etc) and attempts to show her notability based on other people's notability (her husband Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji, a statue by a notable sculptor that was bequeathed to the town by Bomanji's daughter, vague claims that "she was well known in aristocrat social circles and friends to few members of the Royal family" sourced to a few pictures and a letter of hers, that her portrait was painted by a notable painter who also painted the Queen, etc). The sources just don't support her notability.

After a week of extensive discussions on the article creator's talk page User_talk:PukkaParsi#Lady_Frainy_Bomanji_May_2018 this does not seem to be going anywhere. The creator says he or she can't find better sources online and seems unwilling or unable to attempt the suggested technique of looking in archives or libraries. He or she stated that the family was very private and there isn't much information available and seems to have given up [40]. Bomanji died more than 30 years ago, and her husband more than 80 years ago, so I can understand that there may not be much online.

I'd be happy to withdraw this if we can find some reliable sources that clearly show her notability, but so far all I see is an upper class woman who was well liked in her community. Simply being "Lady Harrowgate", supporting local causes, founding a local society 47 years ago and being president of it for two years, and being made an Honorary Freeman of the Borough doesn't convince me that she is notable. Relatively well-known and liked in her community, yes, but that's not enough. Meters (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji. That said, there's some possibility that she has independent notability, but source identification is certainly a challenge. One potentially relevant work is: Gifford, Zerbanoo (2008). The Golden Thread: Asian Experiences of Post-Raj Britain. Pandora Press. ISBN 9780044406051. Unfortunately, I'm only able to access a decidedly inadequate Google snippet from page 38. All in all, I think this is probably better covered at her husband's article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and bold her name and her daughters name. They all seem to have some notability and are probably best covered together. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather odd proposal. We don't bold family members names if they are mentioned in an article. There is no evidence of the daughter's notability, and the mother's article is up for discussion because her notability has not been shown in the article. If she is notable then her article should remain. Please provide the additional reliable sources I requested.

A redirect is fine. We can merge the information that pertains to the husband in some way (the house, maybe even the statue later bequeathed by the daughter, etc) but an already weak article about someone who died in 1937 is not the place to cover another 75 years of family history. Her husband's article should not be used as a WP:coatrack. If the family is notable then we should write an article about the family (but I'm not suggesting that should be done). Meters (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's an obituary of the daughter in the Yorkshire Post, but it would take more than that to make her notable, I think. Deb (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent notability, which is not inherited, as the public notary told me. Alternatively, Merge what is salvageable to Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji. And avoid sourcing to the The Daily Mail unless it's absolutely necessary. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 1 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Original was unanimous, article was then reinstated by a one off SPA. Horrifically promotional - even more so before I made some edits https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Muzaffar_Khan&oldid=816899869

looking at the quality of the sources, 11 are his own linkedin, 14 are an article that no longer exists, almost nothing is significant, independent and reliable. Rayman60 (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article reads like a CV. While the subject has a pretty impressive career across multiple fields, it doesn't look like he meets notability for businesspeople, authors, or academics. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hawks (soundtrack). I went with Hawks (soundtrack) because that article mentions Moonlight Madness, whereas Tales from the Brothers Gibb does not. Mz7 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Madness (Barry Gibb album)

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

A legendary unreleased album with no verifiable sources. The article is entirely dependent on a single fan site that only has one brief paragraph on this supposed album in a list of other items; and I also found this :[41] which has a little more info but is also fan-generated. No verifiable information can be found to show that sessions took place, and even if they did, there is no information on the world's reaction to the fact that the album was never released. Largely WP:FANCRUFT that is better left elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Tales from the Brothers Gibb which features some of the previously unreleased songs intended for the album. Or, sources permitting, create an article on the bootleg album though I have not found any sources that would satisfy GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Hawks (soundtrack) as many of the songs intended for the Moonlight Madness album where included on the half'n'half soundtrack/solo album and that article already mentions the Moonlight Madness album. I feel this is a more appropriate approach than redirecting to the Tales page.Ferdinandhudson (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we're stuck in a no-consensus land here, as the nominator I would support redirecting as the two previous voters suggested. Hawks (soundtrack) seems like the better target but some additional confirmation from knowledgeable fans might help. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the sources are sufficient to meet GNG and NMODEL. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Brajovic

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

apparent press release for non-notable model. The refs are either articles mentioning her among other people, aor are the sort of society gossip that violated NOT TABLOID DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk KEEP She has been profiled, for both her style blog and modeling career, in Italian and French Vogue, as well as Yahoo News 1 2, 3 She also writes for Vogue, and is a local celebrity in Serbia. The references listed here are Vogue (the most respected fashion magazine in the world), Serbian news media and fashion magazines, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the British Telegraph 11 etc. She's also been profiled in Brazilian Harper's Bazaar and French BE magazine.12 These independent sources reflect the fact that she is a fashion icon and model so notability can be established. Abonzz (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

those profiles are exactly what I think should be considered as essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk If you want to learn about designers, stylists, models, etc you go to Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, or the style section of a newspaper. This is why the references listed above are mostly from fashion magazines, which often publish this type of pithy and shallow article (referred to here as sounding a press release). However, if this type of article is no longer accepted as a source, then the issue becomes the entire field of fashion magazines, and not just that one article (because this style of writing is often found in fashion publications). And if fashion magazines are no longer considered reputable sources, then how would one establish notability for those working in the fashion field? On a side note: this is an issue that particularly touches women because they mostly work in in fashion. Also not sure why these same high standards of journalism are not also applied to male sports biographies, for example. Abonzz (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I agree with Abonzz on this. If you think these are "press releases," then the burden is on you to show that they are indeed "press releases" and not just fashion coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Insufficient independent coverage to meet notability requirements. Press releases do not count.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep talk The sources listed are not press releases but articles from well established magazines such as Vogue, thus independent sources, as well as news media. Can you please explain? ThanksAbonzz (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG and Vogue, etc are RS. I was alerted to this AfD from Abonzz who had a very reasonable question about press releases vs. RS. DGG and Dlohcierekim, you can't just decide that an article is a press release because you feel like it or you think it's a press release. Press releases are completely different from articles and while press releases may be used to create a journalistic article, they aren't the same thing at all. Conflating the two is not good editing here on Wikipedia and I'm frustrated to see this still going on at AfD. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without doubt. Good secondary sources, definitely notable. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Keep arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NMODEL per review of available sources and what's already in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Press releases often have the same article and/or content hosted on many various websites, and a means to determine whether or not a news article is a press release or based upon a press release is to utilize Google searches using the titles and/or content of these articles. Actual news articles typically will only have links present in searches for the articles themselves, (and potentially on a few mirrors), as opposed to press releases, which typically are published and duplicated on many sites. I agree with the notion that the provision of proof of news articles being based upon press releases should be the basis to qualify such statements, rather than simply stating this as a fact via proof by assertion with no further qualification provided. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamial Rajputs

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't find sources covering this in-depth enough to make for encyclopedia page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Addison

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Also fails to meet WP:NPROF and WP:MUSICBIO. In short, nothing exists out there that isn't purely run-of-the-mill coverage of a working musician doing their job. As you can see, I went through all of the possible notability criteria that would apply and examined their thresholds for inclusion - unfortunately none of them provide a reason that this person should have a Wikipedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most important period instrument artists of the trombone, Addison clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion no. 6. She was in the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra under Sir Simon Rattle for almost five years, is a founding member of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment where she also serves as Principal Trombonist, in addition to being a member of the English Baroque Soloists and Orchestra Revolutionnaire et Romantique for twenty-two years under Sir John Eliot Gardiner. Zingarese (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Addison passes criterion #5 per recordings on Philips Records and Decca. Zingarese (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources that match the Biography of Living Persons Policy's strict requirements? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her biography at Allmusic and at Discogs, as well as this Guardian piece and BBC article about her playing Elgar's own trombone state that she was in the CBSO for five years, was a founding member (and principal trombone) of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment (no. 6), and featured in recordings for not only Philips and Decca like I mentioned, but also on RCA, Hyperion, Erato, Decca, and Harmonia Mundi (no. 5). Zingarese (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that just looks like basic verification rather than in-depth stuff. @GorgeCustersSabre: What do you think? It's very very borderline, but if it persuades you, I'm happy to withdraw. Give me a ping. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Exemplo347, yes it's rather borderline. I'll still stick with ~~Delete~~ for now, so let's see what consensus emerges. Thanks, and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Exemplo347: and @GorgeCustersSabre:, Addison has met two of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, documented through the independent reliable sources I have listed. Therefore, saying that Addison is "not at all notable" is not true. In addition, I don't exactly think that the AllMusic biography is not "in-depth". Zingarese (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zingarese, I hope you are fine. What you consider true may not be the same as what another editor considers true. It’s best not to try to dictate the meaning you see in any evidence. We disagree over it. That’s my right. It’s not personal. A consensus will perhaps now form and an administrator will make a decision. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgeCustersSabre: It was not at all my intention to come off as snarky, and I am sorry if it seemed like I did. However, I have provided the Wikipedia notability guideline for musical artists, and the subject of this article has met not only one, but two of the criteria. Her meeting of this criteria is well documented through independent and reliable sources. I don’t “consider” it true that this musician is notable. She is notable because she has clearly met the guidelines for inclusion. It would be very shallow if I let my personal feelings dictate my stance on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Zingarese (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zingarese. Your courteous reply is very much appreciated. Thank you. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep as WP:Creative. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I incorporated the references given above[42][43][44][45] as well as one more from the Independent.[46] I think she passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources that are independent of the subject. She is known for her research in historical trombones (as indicated by the discussion in the articles above about her research work with Edward Elgar's trombone) and was awarded an Hon.RAM from the Royal Academy of Music in 2002, which may not quite satisfy WP:NACADEMIC but I think it does add a little bit to her notability. I also added several references to verify each piece of information in the article. However, the most strong reason I believe the article passes the notability test is due to WP:MUSICBIO because the subject "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." She was a founding member and principle trombone player for the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, and a founding member and 25-year player of His Majestys Sagbutts & Cornetts. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm happy to withdraw this per WP:HEY but I'm unable to do so without the agreement of GorgeCustersSabre. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend Exemplo347, yes that would be fine. My concerns have been disproved. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec athletes at international level

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

No evidence of importance of this article. VitalPower | talk 15:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Title is clearly not going to work, but a "list of athletes from Quebec" that retains just the notable examples would be pretty standard, and I don't see an equivalent in Category:Lists of people from Quebec. At very least it should be selectively merged into List of people from Quebec (again, notable examples only). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, in particular lumping multiple sporting codes into one article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article looks like a collection of statistics which violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.Knobbly (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Can be equivalently construed as a weak keep.Gnome has put it nicely. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milovan Stanković

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

I didn't find any links, beside his personal site that he is laureate of Isidora Sekulić Award. Also, beside this award nothing adds to notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources....Sorry, but you can overdo it. There are so many articles where you can name the problem of really missing references. Everything is correct in the article. If You are interested in references: example 1...a meaningless action, sorry!!--AustrianFreedom (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles in Wikipedia may be lacking in sources is entirely irrelevant. You cannot use it as an argument. For more, see here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanković is laureate of the Isidora Sekulić Award: article of Večernje novosti. The process is absurd and not objective. What should be discussed? That someone quickly initiates a discussion on deletion? Sorry, that process is not okay.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Neutrality and objectivity apply. It is therefore completely unobjective and not neutral to put a correct article for discussion on deletion.An encyclopedia contains as much knowledge as possible. It should not include judgments that are only subjective and unobjective. I think, everybody could find another list to add for discussion on deletion. Sorry, that is absurd. No offense! I do not want to offend anyone. That was not my intention with my last statement.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately the article on Isidora Sekulić Award in the Serbian WP also references Stankovic's biography. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hi Arthistorian1977, i know the Isidora Sekulić Award may not be on par with the NIN Award but could you please elaborate on why it cannot be used for notability, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is that I didn't find any secondary sources confirming he received the award. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at the sources: article of the newspaper Danas (introduction: 2001 Nagrada Isidora Sekulić). Thanks.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hi AustrianFreedom, if you could provide more reviews (from reliable sources of course :)) of Stankovic's works that would be really helpful, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hallo, I'll try to find something. But it is a fact that already enough references are available. Many articles with much more text are not nearly written with such a number of references. Sorry, I can't understand this process. I wanted more factual behavior, rather than such action.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching made difficult by the other Milovan Stanković, described in a 1996 NYTimes article as a former soldier who founded a newspaper Alternativa in post-conflict Kosovo. Serb Fighter Now Fights Ruling Party In Bosnia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please, come on, what is so difficult? New Article? Milovan Stanković (politician) or (as you like it)--AustrianFreedom (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I guess. He did receive the 2001 Isidora Sekulić award according to:

"Harmonija i odgonetanje smrti". Danas. 20 January 2007.

I also found a 2013 interview concerning his Leptir novel:

"Potraga za srećnim ostrvima". Večernje novosti. 22 December 2013.

There's a review of Fuler in Serbian Studies:

Serbian Studies. North American Society for Serbian Studies. 2003. p. 154.

Combined with sources already in the article, I think the GNG and NAUTHOR are (barely) satisfied. No such user (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to state Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge, Userfy or Transwiki to help the person who closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a right mess. This discussion is an even worse mess. Almost all sources are non-English. And the subject's main advocate is behaving boorishly. Yet, we seem to (just barely) cover the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. So a (very) Weak Keep it is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after 1 month at AfD (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKenna (Scrabble player)

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

Subject of the article appears to meet all the criteria for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Redirect~~ Single event. Redirect to World Youth Scrabble Championships#WYSC 2012 : Birmingham, England. Other "event", ie highest combined score, article subject was the losing party, and by a long way too, so not that important. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In view of further referenced achievements, changing my !vote to keep. I am concerned though about the difficulty of finding any IRS outside of the "scrabble world" reporting, hence exposing a lack of WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG, although I do like the analogy below to WP:ATHLETE. Aoziwe (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I talk below about why the highest score "event" should count as a second event. But additionally, two more events have since been added and one is a world record to which Aoziwe's criticism doesn't apply.
- Speaking to the highest score "event", which Aoziwe believes is not sufficiently important, there are two points of note. Firstly, the record is replicated on the main Scrabble page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble), and that it was noteworthy enough to make it to the main page suggests to me that it should count as a second event here.
- Additionally, the winner's score of 729 has been achieved a number of times in the past (http://www.wespa.org/700club.shtml). None of those games have combined scores which approach the combined record (eg highest score by one player is 850-259 by Toh Weibin), because such games are almost always much more one-sided. So the implication that the subject's role in the record was unimportant is a misjudgement in my view.
- I will say I was too quick to publish this page and I had inadequately referenced the subject's records with secondary references elsewhere on Wikipedia which were subsequently deleted (and have now been replaced). Performance at the World Scrabble Championship and the now-beaten record for the highest score between two players in 24 hours is now added. Clearly WP:ATHLETE does not apply here, but by analogy, a world youth championship, or a world record, or participation in a world championship is sufficient by itself for presumed notability for many of those sports.Scrumpet97 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have left a notification of this afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that these records are important; "most Scrabble points in 24 hours" borders on the absurd. Performance in junior-level competitions never meets WP:NSPORT (and would be a WP:BLP1E concern here even if GNG is met), and I don't see any other coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 2 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is essentially only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Old Days (Leroy Shield song)

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

This article only has a paragraph of information and two sources. It would be more appropriate for this article to be mentioned as part of the Our Gang article. JE98 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid deletion criteria offered; potential mergers are an editorial matter, not a topic for AFD. That said, I also would oppose a merger here. Our Gang is a large article with a lot to cover, and there's no reason why accessory topics like this can't or shouldn't be spun out. Additionally, while it doesn't even get a redlink, there's an argument to be made that Kaltenmeyer's Kindergarten is sufficiently notable for an article (our coverage of radio programs is maybe worse than our coverage of silent-era films!); in any case, this song was not exclusively associated with the Our Gang property. Is the article a stub? Yes, but stub doesn't always mean bad. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet Goradia

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

Non notable film performer. No references have been provided and searching does not indicate the existence of any reliable references Jupitus Smart 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage in third-party reliable sources; subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NCREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ojuba Linux

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

Not notable, seems to be discontinued years ago. All I was able to find other than blogs and random reviews on Youtube is a passing mention here, also there is nothing on Google Books. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Update: I was able to find something on Google Books, but it looks like a collection of Wikipedia articles published as a book, definetly not enough for notability per WP:SELFREF, I was able to find this only via Google web search and not Books search. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:55, 27 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018#Candidates 3. Numerically, the !votes were close to an even split between delete, keep, and redirect. But this is superficial. The arguments for keeping, if they cited policy at all, were weak and did not sufficiently address the notability concern. The delete and keep !voters fundamentally agreed that the subject is not notable at this time, but per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:PRESERVE I have opted to redirect instead of deleting. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Gadell-Newton

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

A political candidate that doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Looks to be largely written by her or her staff. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article whose initial creation edit summary describes it as "approved copy from Connie and Kirk" but where WP:DISCLOSE has not been followed. The article content reads like an election release, detailing the candidate's career and platform, but with no indication that either meets the biographical notability criteria. One of the main sources in the article says that "she will strive to obtain 3 percent or more in the 2018 election" so it seems unlikely that candidature will be followed by office. But regardless of that, this fails WP:NPOL at present. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, not yet elected candidates in future elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that she already passed some other Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of her candidacy itself, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this makes no credible or properly sourced indication of preexisting notability for other reasons — and it's written like a campaign brochure, not an encyclopedia article, but even a person who does have a clean NPOL pass still doesn't get to have that kind of article, and still doesn't get to have her campaign staff put the article here themselves in defiance of our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL applies, but WP:PROMO appears to also apply. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SportingFlyer talk 00:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was very wordy and promotional. I think it was copy-pasted from somewhere like a resume. I removed all the unsourced info and non-independent citations. I think there is enough significant discussion about her that she just barely passes WP:GNG. She has been a candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives District 18 and received about 7% of the vote in 2016, which she received some press for. Now she is the chosen candidate for a major party for the Governor of Ohio. She has already received significant coverage about that, and it's likely she will continue to get more coverage as it gets closer to the election. WP:POLITICIAN states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." I think that is the case here. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - work done by Lonehexagon has greatly improved article, there are no longer any issues with the use of unreliable sources. I have added additional sources concerning her witnessing of a courtroom shooting, and believe she has had enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Million_Moments (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018#Declared - Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, running for an office isn't enough. It's also WP:TOOSOON. The other coverage is about her being a a witness to a shooting - which isn't enough to show notability. I added her to the Ohio article already. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly added her to the wrong section. She was already there. My redirect vote stands. Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018#Candidates 3 TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPOL. Not notable apart from coverage of candidacy. Elected officials get pages, but they have to actually be elected first. Marquardtika (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am concerned about the obvious WP:COI but that's a different issue than whether she's notable, which she is. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been greatly improved since it was nominated for deletion. If you look at the current article, I believe it's pretty neutral now. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; my initial concerns about article quality have been resolved. The remaining question is whether WP:GNG is met, as nobody claims WP:NPOL is met here. it is certainly possible for political candidates to meet GNG without having been elected to office, but I still don't think the (largely WP:MILL) coverage of her campaign here is sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 27 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]

Delete Candidate does not meet notability requirements for a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F601:EA00:89E:4C97:2F3D:54 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per timtempleton. She fails WP:POLITICIAN and the coverage in reliable sources is local and routine for candidates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the unofficial essay at WP:MILL (which some have stated may invalidate the coverage of this person which would otherwise satisfy WP:GNG) and I don't understand how any of that applies here. The examples of run-of-the-mill coverage includes residential addresses, commercial buildings, local restaurant reviews, local sports, local clubs, local festivals, side streets, a bank, small political rallies, and local lawyers providing commentary. Which of these applies to the coverage of this subject? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See new iVote below: ~~Delete~~ Article was created last year as PROMO when she was running for Congress, now she's running for Governor and while that does not disqualify her from having an article, one of my personal tests with candidate articles is having done something significant before you decided to run for office. I am not seeing that. Moreover, all coverage of this now perennial candidate for a FRINGE political party is run-of-the-MILL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should not be in the business of keeping vital information from the public. Interest in the Ohio Green Party is at an all time high. In the May 8th, 2018 primary, despite being unopposed, Constance drew so many votes that the Green Party doubled its percentage of the over all vote compared to the last state-wide primary in 2016. ^[1]The Greens may be small in Ohio, but they are growing while the other Parties are losing members. Other online references have found her worthy of inclusion. ^[2] The truth is that unless the Constance Gadell-Newton receives at least 3% of the vote in the 2018 election, Ohio state law says the Green Party will be disbanded. The Green Party is the only recognized third Party in Ohio, and these calls to delete Constance's entry are thinly veiled, partisan attempts to keep the public from even knowing that they have a choice in this election beyond the two major parties. Wikipedia must not be used for partisan purposes, especially not favoring the large Parties while discriminating against the small. User:Joe DeMare Joe DeMare (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

User:Joe DeMare may have a COI. Has made only a dozen edits, all are about the Ohio Green Party; sole item on his talk page is about uploading a photo of a Green Party candidate. His comment here is not policy based.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually appears he was the Green Party candidate. SportingFlyer talk 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)LOL. Thank you for that, User:SportingFlyer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory Is incorrect when he claims all my Wikipedia entries are about Ohio Green Party. I once spent a week trying to insert a reference to a study done by the European Union on the number of estimated premature deaths from Chernobyl into the Wikipedia page on the health effects of Chernobyl. At that time, the study calculated there had been 1 million premature deaths. Every time I inserted the reference, it was deleted a few hours later by pro-nuclear editors. I finally gave up, concluding that Wiki was too vulnerable to being manipulated by people with agendas. It is true that Ohio Green Party politics is my expertise. In fact, I just corrected Constance's entry to read that she is the "past" chair of the Ohio Green Party, not the current chair. I was elected to the Ohio State Committee in the May 8th primary. However, there is no COI in pointing out that this deletion is an act of political repression. Constance is the only minor party candidate on the Ohio ballot, and over the next months perhaps millions of people will turn to Wikipedia for information on her when deciding how to cast their vote. Entering "Constance G" in the search box already causes her name to appear. If her entry is deleted, Wikipedia will be used to further the partisan objectives of the two major parties in the U.S. which are pretending the Green Party doesn't exist. In order to appear on the primary ballot, Constance had to organize petitioners from all over the state of Ohio. That effort itself was noteworthy. However, if you look back at the full history of edits on this article, you will see some of her most noteworthy accomplishments were removed, and then her entry was marked for deletion for lack of noteworthy accomplishments. She has defended many political dissidents in Ohio. It's true that I am only a fringe member of the Wikipedia community. However, those of you deep in the community who are making this decision should step back a bit and consider the "of course" factor. That is, if you asked the average person on the street, "Should Wikipedia have an entry for the Green Party's candidate for Governor?" the answer would be "Of course!" This is not a simple application of an internal rule. This is a political act which will have direct effect on the outcome of a political race. A truly neutral source of information, while not promoting any candidate, would at least give basic information about all candidates and allow the reader to make their decision. Deleting this article would deny millions the information they need to make that decision. ~~Keep~~ Joe DeMare Joe DeMare (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking iVote. Only one iVote per customer. Joe, what name did you edit under previously? I ask because your edit record is brief, and not about the European Union.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E.M. Gregory. I was unaware that I was actually voting twice. As far as I can remember, I used my actual name, Joe DeMare. However this was perhaps five or six years ago. I'll go back and check if I was using a pseudonym at that time. Joe DeMare (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Gadell-Newton is a legitimate political candidate and notable person in Ohio. Her recent video interview on the much acclaimed Tim Black Show attests to this. The interview can be seen online via Tim Black's channels on You Tube, Facebook, Periscope, and Twitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.20.170 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — 134.228.20.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018#Candidates 3 - Per WP:POLOUTCOMES and User:timtempleton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, with independent reliable secondary sources. Jethomas5 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Bearcat explains very clearly above, we do not keep articles where the sole claim to notability is running for office. The sources covering this candidate as a candidate are WP:MILL. The only things that makes a political candidate eligible to have a page are extraordinary coverage, or achieving of notability in some endeavor other than running unsuccessfully for office. (Note that Harold Stassen was elected Governor before he became America's perpetual perennial candidate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018 as the usual outcome for a candidate for a statewide office, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The election is notable, even if the candidates may not be. --Enos733 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although there are a mix of keep and delete arguments, none of the arguments shows any substantial coverage from reliable sources for this original game, nor gives any other substantial argument for notability. Therefore consensus is that this topic is non-notable. There are sources for a sequel, which seems likely notable. Should anyone ask, I will gladly restore this content to a user sandbox per Izno so that the verbiage can be used as background for the notable topic (the sequel). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here (game)

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

Non-notable video game. The extent of the (reliable) coverage is an article in Rock Paper Shotgun and an interview at Gamasutra. Not enough to pass notability criteria. The sequel doesn't either, only getting a serious mention from PC Gamer and Adventure Gamers. Being forced to combine 2 games together to make them notable is not a very good sign that it is fit for Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Wikipedia should be inclusive or exclusive. I vote inclusive. The article does no harm to people not interested in the game. And people who are interested in the game can find out more about the game and its creators. I suspect it is harder for a Dutch game to attract a following than it would be for an American game, and harder for an indie game to attract a following than for a routine game by a big game company. "We Were Here" has won one award and been nominated for a couple of others. Why not give it a chance? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Give it a chance" suggests that if you put it on Wikipedia, it will become more notable. That goes against WP:NOTADVERTISING. The game should already be notable before an article gets made. I have no prejudice against recreation if one of the games is mentioned more in reliable sources, but currently both games are not individually notable on their own. The sequel has a number of reviews, but none of them seem to come from trusted outlets._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here Too reviews from the WP:VG/S list: PCGamer, Gamer.nl, Aventure Gamers, Just Adventure, and a number of other announcements and other coverage. Seems reasonably notable. We Were Here actually does not. Probably needs a rework to be predominantly about the sequel game. Keep generally. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has virtually nothing about the sequel. Would that not be a "Delete" this as non-notable with no prejudice towards creating an article about We Were Here Too?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested draftifying another recently in a similar circumstance, but that was two entirely disparate items (a company and its video game). The two topics here are likely to be significantly similar. I'd rather save the history and verbiage so someone else can take up the "rewrite this to be about the sequel" predominantly (and likely with a subsequent move). --Izno (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had asked this some time ago on the VG project after searching sources; the sequel got some attention that could be GNG notable but not the first, though the first is alluded to in the discussion of the sequel. To that end I was thinking this is the type of game better covered as a series article, both games fully discussed (not separate) in this series article, since there's no way the first game can survive as a standalone. So either have a standalone page for "We Were Here Too" that mentions the first game, or a series page for "We Were Here", but we can't have a standalone "We Were Here" game page. --Masem (t) 13:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the demonstrated RS coverage above. Phediuk (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --VitalPower | talk 12:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete the sequel appears notable due to the reviews, but I can't find if it has a page on the site. This page is promotional and unsourced and sourcing is weak - it does not pass WP:GNG and is arguably promotional in nature, and it does not inherit notability from the successful sequel. An article on the series would likely be notable. SportingFlyer talk 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing sourced to "keep". No prejudice against an article about the sequel if the sourcing exists. But yeah even that's a stretch—I wouldn't consider Adventure Gamers reliable (or Just Adventure, for that matter) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the sequel and/or series is notable, write an article on that, but this isn't notable. Also, the text here doesn't seem very useful, though if someone wants it to write an article on the series no opposition to userification. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 5 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. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lumin Runtime

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

Not enough references in reliable sources to establish notability. Fails at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability per WP:GNG; it's one component of an unreleased product, which is only mentioned in passing on the company's own website. No significant coverage online in WP:RS. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Herrera

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

Doesn't meet WP:NTRACK or WP:GNG; holding the Maltese steeplechase record (at 90 seconds off the world record) is insufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I think he meets GNG. Has competed at global youth championships as well as at Euro Juniors in two events twice. More importantly he's achieved independent non-routine coverage like this[47][48] and he's finished sixth at an international championship[49]. --Habst (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a track person who fails the notability guidelines for track competitiors, so clearly non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think your conclusion follows from the premise. NSPORTS criteria are explicitly intended to non-definitively determine whether appropriate sources can be found, not to determine the notability of an athlete. So someone who is a sumo wrestler but does not meet NSUMO is not "clearly not-notable" -- it's more nuanced than that. Rather than talking about the sport-specific criteria, we should discuss how WP:NOTABLE the athlete is. Plus if you really want to get technical, it's possible that his 6th place at the Games of the Small States of Europe makes him achieve NTRACK, because it was a top-8 showing at an international championship event that had rounds. --Habst (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National record holder and has represented his nation at the European Games. SFB 15:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Herrera is a record holder and has achieved success at notable events.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion is unconvincing. "Unremarkable" is indeed a reason for deletion if this means that no reliable sources have remarked on the topic, which means we have no sources on which to base a verifiable article. Sandstein 12:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-O Data

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable electronics manufacturer. Significant RS coverage not found; the sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as no consensus in Aug 2017. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Unremarkable" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Looking at the Japanese article, this is a company of sufficient size and revenue that they would pass WP:N. They might not be well known, famous or particularly innovative, but we don't set our notability bar that high. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PR piece without depth. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the first AfD, User:Michitaro unearthed a slew of ostensibly good references for the article; none of those have been added in the subsequent ~10 months. If Michitaro (or another Japanese speaker) would re-examine those sources and (if they're any good) work them into the article, this could be a WP:HEY situation. A Train^talk 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: I did not find the sources from the first AfD compelling; that's why I nominated the article. In any case, nearly a year since the first AfD is plenty of chances. It's time to let this articles go. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 2 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] Drinnon, Dale A. (19 April 2011). "Muhuru, Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu and the Megacrocs of East Africa". Frontiers of Zoology.

[Newton2009-2] Michael Newton (2009). Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra, and Other Elusive Creatures. ABC-CLIO. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-313-35906-4.

[Virginia_Writers_Project_1941_p._82-3] Virginia Writers' Project (1941). Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion. American guide series. Oxford University Press. p. 82. Retrieved May 31, 2018. John R. Holmes, a Negro candidate for State senator in 1892, was shot to death by a white man in Charlotte County. This act, described as 'a very extreme example of intimidation,' solved the dilemma for the district, since no other Negro ...

[Williams_1965_p._110-4] Williams, J.E. (1965). The Progres[s]ive Free Negroes in the United States Before Abraham Lincoln and After. p. 110. Retrieved May 31, 2018. There was, John R. Holmes a Negro candidate for State Senator in 1892, he was shot to death by a Klan white man in Charlotte County. This act was described as a very extreme example of intimidation, which solved the dilemma for the ...

[Bennett_Berry_1979_p._89-5] Bennett, L.; Berry, L.H. (1979). I wouldn't take nothin' for my journey: two centuries of an Afro-American minister's family. Johnson Pub. Co. p. 89. Retrieved May 31, 2018. Violence and intimidation accelerated, and when John R. Holmes, a Negro candidate for State Senator in 1892, was shot to death by a white man in Charlotte County, no other Negro candidates presented themselves for election to State or ...

[6] ttps://canal6.com.hn/otras-noticias/guatemala-pone-en-aeropuerto-a-guarda-que-habla-diez-idiomas.html

[7] ttp://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/pedro-perebal-el-joven-poliglota-llega-a-su-primer-dia-de-trabajo-en-aeronautica-civil-161287

[8] ttp://www.genteditalia.org/2018/05/04/guatemala-borsa-di-studio-per-il-poliglotta-pedro/

[9] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/PrensaLibreTV/DetalleTV/1876451

[10] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/poliglota-recibe-becas-para-estudiar-italiano-y-aleman#cxrecs_s

[11] ttp://www.chapintv.com/buscador/perebal

[12] ttp://www.rai.it/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-4a049830-c42b-499c-b2e0-97eedcf952bc.html

[13] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKUkaDXIFis

[14] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20180522005445/https://canal6.com.hn/otras-noticias/guatemala-pone-en-aeropuerto-a-guarda-que-habla-diez-idiomas.html

[15] ttp://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-43843383

[16] ttp://www.genteditalia.org/2018/05/04/guatemala-borsa-di-studio-per-il-poliglotta-pedro/

[17] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/pedro-el-guardia-de-seguridad-que-habla-diez-idiomas-y-quiere-aprender-mas

[18] ttp://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/disciplina-y-esfuerzo-premiaron-a-pedro-perebal-158281

[19] ttp://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/pedro-perebal-el-guardia-poliglota-cumple-con-su-primer-dia-de-trabajo-en-aeronautica-civil

[20] ttp://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/pedro-perebal-el-poliglota-cumple-su-sueno-161303

[21] ttp://ballot-access.org/2018/05/08/ohio-green-party-sets-new-record-for-number-of-voters-choosing-a-green-primary-ballot/

[22] ttps://ballotpedia.org/Constance_Gadell-Newton

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]