Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 July	6 July >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Callender

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON applies. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:NACTOR, from this person's filmography he has basically only played bit parts in TV and movies, and not "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Red Phoenix ^talk 04:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 06:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs are not convincing enough. Dial911 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria Wolfson5 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oneworld Accuracy

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

No evidence of any notability. Three of the refs attest to the fact that the company has been used by the Nigerian government. One other is an academic paper, one is a commercial site advertising and one is a mention as a partner firm. None are independent and reliable. An earlier PROD was removed from the article. The creator wrote on the article talk page in a way that suggested COI. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. To make matters worse, there are no inline citations and so much of the content appears to be original research / advertising. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jmertel23 fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails as per improved NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epik Subwoofers

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

Non-notable subwoofer company, no coverage to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a CNET source in the article, but that's about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable enough. SemiHypercube (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are a couple other product reviews: [1], [2]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the audioholics review even worth mentioning? It's all specs and 3 sentences - hardly substantial and certainly not enough to establish notability. While on the surface hometheaterhifi appears to be an RS, a single review is not enough to warrant an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a CNet review referenced by the article. If hometheaterhifi is an acceptable source for you, we now have multiple sources and so the notability criteria is met. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng I should have rephrased what I said - in general the hifi site would probably fall under an RS but I don't find either review substantial enough to warrant an article and it appears most others are in agreement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: what are you using to gauge whether a review is substantial enough? ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough reliably sourced encyclopedic content since there is only one reliable source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Quigg (developer)

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

Fails WP:BIO as lacking sufficient reliable sources and significant coverage to establish notability. Several gSearches conducted per WP:BEFORE failed to locate sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only mentions, not enough in-depth coverage. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his business bankruptcy was pretty large. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the coverage relating to his bankruptcy is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:BIO, and none of the publication sources are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Newslinger (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Ahmed

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

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. This one fails as of now. Saqib (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually politicians should be given differential treatment. Politicians use their power to change the way the world works.Enemyofjokes (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which they do by holding office, not by running for it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom appears to misunderstand the rules. An politically active WP:PERSON does not have to qualify under the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. As with any topic, the basic criterion is WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search doesn't produce any sig coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this woman has an in-depth profile in the New York Times. And this is already in the article. Another profile in International Business Times that is already cited. Is this AFD an error? @Saqib: did you do all of the checks in WP:BEFORE? – Lionel^(talk) 08:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt makes a valid point. Nom not only failed to perform WP:BEFORE, he doubled down, asserting that: "Search doesn't produce any sig coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person." But, as Lionelt points out, there was WP:SIGCOV already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed some blunder on my part for which I'm embarrassed. I'm willing to withdraw this nom. --Saqib (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, but this does not make any strong claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons. The existence of a profile in The New York Times is not in and of itself a magic bullet that inherently exempts her from having to clear the deliberately high bar we set for non-winning candidates — the rule most certainly is not that a person at this level of significance clears the bar the moment one piece of extralocal coverage exists, it's that enough extralocal coverage has to exist to get her over the ten-year test as a topic of enduring significance. What I am not seeing here, however, is a credible reason to believe people will still be looking for this article in 2028. She might attain something like that in the future, certainly, and if that happens then a new article can be recreated at that time — but nothing here is a credible reason why she could be considered to have already cleared the ten-year test today. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP1E, NPOL and NOPROMO. Subject fails 1E which is a clearly defined exception to GNG/BASIC. Subject has no other claim to notability other than her candidacy. And the article is naked WP:PROMOTION. Even if there were a claim to notability independent of her failed political career, and there isn't, we don't allow promotion or advocacy on Wikipedia, period. NOPROMO is policy and trumps notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going through the references, The Guardian is a major one but that was self-written op-ed. But, that still leaves The New York Times, The Oregonian, and websites such as Huffington Post. References begin 2011 until recent, so she's not 1E. Is it promotional? Then let's cut it down. Do I like it/her/what it stands for? Immaterial, per WP:JDL. I don't see how she fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see more here than a mere candidacy, in fact a minority of the article is about her seeking office. It passes GNG easily. She is described more than once by major news sources as a "Muslim Republican Leader." As such, I find it likely that people doing deep historical research may search for her name in 2118. Will it be the most popular article, no it will not. But will its existence improve the encyclopedia? Yes, it will. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one clearly passes GNG. And I don't know what promotional is in there to delete it from Wikipedia. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a lot of the coverage is for one event - her wearing the American flag hijab on Fox's Megyn Kelly show - but there's been relatively little since. I found a brief appearance in 2017 from NPR [[3]], and an appearance on CNN with Don Lemon [[4]]. I think there's a curiosity factor - seeing a Muslim woman supporting Trump. It would be a regular keep if media coverage were more current. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a simply majority here to Keep, not a true consensus. Relisting, thusly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 21:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E and WP:PROMO. A difficult call since there are a few sources, but her candidacy apparently only generated one article and I'm not even counting it as the "one event" as she only got 250 votes. The remainder of the coverage is due to one self-generated event. I don't think she's far off from passing WP:GNG, but every source here is either trivial (i.e. her being found in California) or self-promotional. SportingFlyer talk 08:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of sources in the article establish notability beyond campaign coverage. – Lionel^(talk) 08:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the sourcing is here to meet GNG, but barely. A muslim Republican is pretty rare. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG. Dial911 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you don't get to vote multiple times in the same discussion. You get one vote, not several. You're free to comment as many times as you like in a discussion, such as by responding to other people's comments, but you're not allowed to preface any followup comments with a bolded restatement of the keep vote you've already given. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Civilized Party

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

Non-notable political party lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment news coverage is decent: [5] Those are major newspapers considered trustworthy (Thai Rath, Matichon, Daily News, Naewna, Nation TV, Spring News, etc.). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A fringe party, which I doubt is widely taken seriously, but even such parties usually generate enough coverage to establish notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG. Political parties are not inherently notable. WP:TOOSOON for this recently formed entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON - Party has not yet established its notability. Simply existing is not enough, but if it continues to exist it may gain notability, and it could be recreated then. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and Red Phoenix. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Travel Group

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really not a lot here. Sources came up very weak for me on searching, not enough to establish notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 3 news sites are coming up for me https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqSQgKIkNDQklTTERvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoOGFIV1JYTkZWdlltUTViMmgxYjNFMlRYTkdVMFpPYlc5bldGbFZRMUpOS0FBUAE?q=%22Ovation+Travel+Group%22+-wikipedia&lr=English&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz2v6EgpLcAhWMIMAKHYO6C6sQqgIIMjAB&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB:en --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability and nothing found in reliable sources. Possibly thinly-veiled advertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourceless and seems to be promotional. Dial911 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Multiple senior international appearance. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bùi Tiến Dũng (footballer, born 1995)

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

no reliable sources, violates WP:BLP Joeykai (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with significant trimming, confirmed national team player: [6]. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets N:FOOTY as a National Team player. This doesn't need a AFD, the article just needs cleaning up of unsourced information. NZFC^(talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in senior international fixtures for Vietnam. The unsourced content can be removed or a source found if possible. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Kosack (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing for the national senior team clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for Vietnam.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by admin A7. (non-admin closure) ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune (band)

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

There don't seem to be any reliable sources about this band. Thus, since we cannot verify the information in the article to the standard we would like, it should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rogers (Oklahoma politician)

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

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. Since unelected candidates are not deemed automatically notable just for being candidates, the notability test that a candidate has to pass is not just "some campaign coverage exists" -- every candidate always gets some campaign coverage, so making a candidate notable enough for inclusion requires evidence that his candidacy was a special case for some reason: either he already had enough preexisting notability for other reasons that he would already have qualified for an article on those other grounds anyway, or the coverage explodes far out of scope with what every candidate in every election could always show. But neither of those things is true here: this is referenced purely to the routinely expected campaign coverage, not to any strong evidence that his candidacies were somehow more notable than everybody else's candidacies, and the article doesn't even try to claim that he had any preexisting notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable defeated political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rogers does not meet the criteria at WP:NPOL (all of the coverage I could find in RS is routine campaign-related coverage and therefore doesn't fit the definition of "significant press coverage"); failed political candidates are not inheritably notable just for being candidates. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7, G11). (non-admin closure) Pratyush (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhirendra Kumar (businessman)

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

References are mostly run-of-the-mill coverage of his business. Lacking indication of individual notability, also mirrored by an article which has virtually no information about the person and instead covers mostly the company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promo 'cruft on a nn person. Part of a walled garden created by the same contributor; I also nominated the company here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Value Research (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - 'Dhirendra Kumar (businessman)' is not a businessman and wrongly re-classified by the gentleman/lady who nominated the article for deletion after actually re-classifying it. Artice was originally titled 'Dhirendra Kumar (Valueresearh)'. Subject is the CEO and founder of the India's most reputed finincial online website Valueresearhonline and major/prestigious newspapers, TV channels, magazines and other media in India regard him highly when it comes to investment advice. If one searchers 'Dhirendra Kumar' one will find major Indian TV channels seeking advice from him via interviews thus proving subject's credibility. Anyone remotely involved in fincane or investmnet in India knows to regard the subject and Value Research in high esteem. Tabletop123

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman vs Mahiravana

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

fails WP:NFF the sources are typical Bollywood press release routine stuff. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this animated film - [7][8][9][10], and there are reviews - [11][12][13][14], should qualify under WP:NFILMS. Hzh (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw in the light of the reviews above. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole pro-Keep comment lacked any basis in WP:PAG. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Deleters of Worlds

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

Non-notable tag team. They have only been together for about 3 months, plus this isnt even the official team name per [15] Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage of the team in reliable independent sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 21:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is basically hand written without propper sources, also this is not the official team name of the Duo. SSGeorgie (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The duo were originally in a feud together, but would later become a tag team like Cesaro and Sheamus and Team Hell No.Hansen Sebastian 06:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Rename Also, the team name should be renamed to just "Matt Hardy and Bray Wyatt". Hansen Sebastian 06:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Hansen Sebastian: So what? What policy based argument are you bringing forward? Also I have told you before, your signature does not contain any links, a clear violation of WP:SIGLINK. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Sister's Machine discography

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

I am nominating this article for deletion to reduce the clutter of redirects to My Sister's Machine. This article was a messy attempt on my part to salvage the information on Wallflower when that article was tagged for notability by User:Emeraude. As you can see, I've taken the liberty of moving the information about Wallflower, which was originally created by User:Soul Crusher to the My Sister's Machine article; I distinctly recall that format being used on The Glove before I created the Blue Sunshine article. I've already redirected a bunch of obscure album articles of mine to their respective band articles...Closer to Presence, Fools Dance (EP) and They'll Never Know to Fools Dance, Spin the World to Mistrust, Blue Star to Levinhurst...to name a few. I've taken the liberty of recreating Closer over on music.wikia.com/wiki/Music_Hub, which I'm sure you'll agree is probably a more fitting place for it. Hope that was ok! I've been kicking around a few ideas in my head about what to do with those other band articles I highlighted and would love to discuss them with anyone. In the meantime, please feel free to delete this article in order to reduce the clutter of redirects to the My Sister's Machine article; I'd do it myself but I'm not an admin. Shaneymike (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shaneymike (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. @Shaneymike: For future reference, you can request a speedy delete per WP:G7 with the {{db-g7}} tag the next time you want to delete an article you just created. Newslinger (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video Wars

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

fails WP:NFILM that seems to have had 1 screening in an alternative film festival that "pays tribute to everything from locally shot rarities to video era oddities." fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That film festival may have been a first step towards notability but there is nothing to suggest that it ever took a second one. The article has only two incoming links from the main space and at least one of them is definitely a mistake. The tone is also somewhat promotional with the phrase "marked the directorial debut" making it sound like the guy has more than one credit on IMDB. (He doesn't.) The thing seems to have attracted little interest in 1984 although somebody did find a copy to write about in 2011[16]. Yeah. That's not helping any. Deleting this is a kindness. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Kona Venkat#As producer Just Chilling (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Film Corporation

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

fails WP:NCORP and notably WP:CORPDEPTH Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability - despite being involved in the production of some well known movies, notability is not inherited and the company does not appear to be notable in its own right. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kona Venkat#As Producer - Googling the company finds several mentions in various publications, some mainstream pubs but mostly film-related. But, there are no in-depth profiles - just passing mentions of company-involved films, and they are mostly because of the involvement of Kona Venkat, so this doesn't meet the standards of WP:GNG as a standalone. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above. Blue Riband► 02:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient evidence of encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East on the west and west on the east

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

I entirely fail to see how an 'unofficial motto' can be notable. I'd be open to a sensible redirect proposal. TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to the article on Serbia. The article's title is rather long, making it a heavy title for a stand-alone article. Vorbee (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete This gets no GHits and and no GBook hits outside of WP itself, so at present it gives every sign of being something someone made up one day. If someone can find some other translation which does see notice, we might have something; but I cannot see having an article whose title is a phrase that nobody actually uses. I note that the article doesn't give the phrase in its ostensible native tongue, so I don't have anything to search for in that wise. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only references to the “Motto” are mirror sites of Wikipedia, as shown here [17]. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That result should come as no surprise: when dealing with a "foreign" subject from an anglophone POV, always search for sources in the other language(s). When that isn't common sense, carefully follow WP:BEFORE that says in B6:
"Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede."
I have provided an alt. search term below. Sam Sailor 19:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable at best with WP being the sole translator of a word/phrase. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 19:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. search term

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphie Hutchins

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

This is a minor character who is not independently notable. A PROD was removed by an IP suggesting a merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. However, that list was never meant to be a catch-all for every character who has appeared in a Marvel comic book. It's meant as a receptacle for characters who are not independently notable but are mentioned by enough other articles. This character is only relevant to She-Hulk, but isn't mentioned at all at She-Hulk. All incoming links appear to be because of Template:She-Hulk. Therefore, absolutely nothing of value will be lost by completely deleiting this information. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 5 July 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 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GNG. I trust nom's word that character is insignificant in She-Hulk. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Whitman

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

Subject has so far failed to meet WP Notable, and the majority of the content relies on content discussed on Whitman's podcast. NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. The content of the article is trivial. His YouTube channels have less than 25,000 YouTube subscribers combined, and neither one is significant enough to merit their own article. Newslinger (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Vasilevsky

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

Sources do not remotely convince me of this books notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Senoron

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

Not meeting minimum inclusion criteria of WP:NMODEL. Ranked #35 at Miss World Philippines 2017 which is not enough to attain encyclopedic value. She won Miss Multinational, notability of the contest is questionable itself. Couldn't find anything substantial to demonstrate notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen. OK, we have lots of articles on such, but we shouldn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person, failed to meet WP:GNG.Richie Campbell (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of reliable sources mentioning her, none with significant coverage. Dial911 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It looks like there is a rough consensus that there is insufficient reliable source coverage to ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purulent Excretor

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks for relisting separately, this one has a number of references on the French wikipedia article including magazine articles so it seems to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete: Atlantic306, the French Wikipedia article may well have references, but none of them look like they pass RS to me. The bulk of the biography is referenced to the band's own (very badly made) website, and the other four are two references to user-generated Wikis similar to the "Encyclopedia Metallum", and two blogs. Richard3120 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I only have only a basic understanding of French but a Google Translate does seem to support Richard3120's assessment. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Richard3120. All I can find are links to blogs. Zubizuva (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pouya aftabi

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

Been deleted previously per G11 and A7, and is an autobiography. I also put a PROD tag on the page, which was removed for the page's creator. The only sources listed on the page are to Pouya aftabi's profiles on all different websites, a direct google search link, or other Wikipedia articles. This is pretty much all I can find when I search google as well - no "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." There are also a lot of unsourced statements, which were likely put there due to personal experience. Sadly does not pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources concerning the person are primary, so fails WP:GNG. Whilst not a reason for deletion, there is also an undisclosed conflict of interest, due to the name of the creator. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 12:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who wrote the article was also caught using sockpuppets to defend the page. This user also reverted the deletion template placed by Sky, and also reverted the cleanup template placed by me aswell. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 12:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually was the one who opened the SPI. I also wouldn't be surprised if the IP who repeatedly removed the AfD template is related to Pouya aftabi in some way as well.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Film Institute

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

Unreferenced advertising Rathfelder (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Karate Union

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

This was a declined Prod (This organization seems to be a poorly run scam. Their only internet presence is this article and a thread claiming they are a marketing scam. They charge “inductees” for a hall of fame award) based on there being a previously challenged Prod. Would add that there are notability issues also.PRehse (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice :-). Fails WP:NORG / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in the United Arab Emirates#Emirate of Dubai. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regent International School, Dubai

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

Was dePRODed by creator. Concen was: Non notable primary school. Fee paying. Promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom non notable primary school.Created by a editor with a COI.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in the United Arab Emirates#Emirate of Dubai per WP:BEFORE. The school is listed there and it allows any sourced material that can be found to be added. Just Chilling (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No news articles to indicate independent notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Just Chilling's argument is persuasive. Narky Blert (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gentoo Linux. This close is w/o prejudice to a potential merge, about which discussion can continue elsewhere. However, I would note that absent someone finding decent references there is not much that can be merged w/o running afoul of WP:V and WP:CITE. In any event the article history will be preserved on the redirect page if anyone wants to pursue the merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardened Gentoo

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor.Their rationale is:

It is not notable and has no references. User:37.13.143.6, 10:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk _YO! 11:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'CommentSpeedy keep I do see references to hardened Gentoo and suggest nominator may not have performed full and proper WP:BEFORE. Article has recently been subjected to disruptive editing by various IP's and on balance of probabilities these are not independent of each other or the nominator; and a user of good standing would likely have been blocked before this nomination. There is potential for improving the article or perhaps a merge if someone is willing to put the effort in to do it but difficult in the context of the immediate recent history. That the article needs improvement, and probably has significant inaccuracies, in almost certain in my opinion, and I've added a disputed template on th article page and a warning on talk to get it sorted. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the speedy keep proposal as it was ignored and didn't happen - leaving a victory for disruptive editing in my opinion. I have attempted some (hopefully) constructive editing however which I would have preferred to have done so not under an AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gentoo Linux. The hardened profile has apparently stalled, and I'm inclined to think the article doesn't exist so well on its own merits. Basie (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gentoo Linux. The world has too many Linux distributions in my view, but I suppose if we can name check one we can name check them all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear Hardened Gentoo is not a distribution. A redirect to version of the article in in existance at the time of of your edit would have not have been appropriate due to WP:SURPRISE and I would have opposed it ... a merge would have been required and such a redirect has been tried and previously backed out. At least one person has previously claimed any suitable merge would be too disruptive to the target.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HitBTC

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. Sourced only to cryptocurrency enthusiast websites. Has had problems with covert advertising in the past. MER-C 11:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into List of bitcoin companies. This article provides nothing of value that wouldn't be covered by the columns of the list. Newslinger (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete. Every entry in List of bitcoin companies has its own article, so a merge wouldn't be appropriate. Newslinger (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C .Fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 05:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Beginner's Guide to Snuff

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

Two short reviews in the LA Times and Variety -- what amounts to local coverage in a movie-industry town like L.A. and pretty much obligatory for any film released in Hollywood -- and the absence of any awards, impact, or box office ($12,000 total) does not an article make. Wikipedia is not a directory of no-name films. Calton | Talk 11:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. LA Times and Variety are national if not international publications not local and only notable films are reviewed in both, and it has been reviewed in other reliable sources such as The Hollywood Reporter here and Film Journal International (used by Rotten Tomatoes) link is here Atlantic306 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, Nom has failed to point out the Policy this article violates. IMHO passes WP:GNG--DBig Xray 19:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-trivial in-depth coverage from reputable outlets, this plainly meets the general notability guidelines, and verifiability. -- Henry ^TALK 02:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 05:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi State Medical University

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

Fails notability as per WP:ORG.- Kishfan (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Universities are automatically notable because abundant references almost always exist for them. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bizarre nomination. We don't delete major universities because with enough research, including in the Georgian language, they meet WP:ORG. Yes, the article needs much work but the way forward is to add sources, not to try to delete - see WP:BEFORE. Just Chilling (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Just Chilling and is a 88 years old higher-education institution since 1930 in the Soviet Union and later Georgia and the leading medical school in Georgia (country). Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OC-Media agenda-de [18] alumni Sai Pallavi [19] other articles [20] Statesmen says it's one of the popular medical schools for Indians in Georgia [21] Deccan Chronicle 75% from India [22] [23] [24] lots of other random articles like interactions with the government [25] [26] [27] [28] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because, unsurprisingly for a major medical school, there are plenty of sources to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As per previous AfD. Please do not re-hash deletion discussions that have already been had, it is disruptive. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia

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

This article does not pass WP:MADEUP as is filled with primary souces and austenasia only shows 20,000 results Drowningseagull (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or even speedy keep which was the outcome of the AFD in October 2017. It is not WP:MADEUP and WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good argument for deletion. I don't see anything has changed, subject still passes GNG. Would nom sign their postings, please? Sam Sailor 08:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup stadiums

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

We have Category:FIFA World Cup stadiums: what is the purpose of this page. It seems to be no more than an amalgam of the Venues section of each WC article. Kevin McE (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First purpose is to give information about choice process and requirements to become FIFA World Cup stadiums. FIFA World Cup hosts article is bit roll model.

Stadium choice process and stadium requirments are very detailed (Capacity, Roof proportion and so on) and changed a lot. I'll add information about process and requiments like belows soon.

Matches	Stadium capacities
Opening match	80,000
Remaining group stage matches	40,000
Round of 32	40,000
Round of 16	40,000
Quarterfinals	40,000
Semifinals	60,000
Third place play-off	40,000
Final	80,000

Second purpose is to give the all time world cup stadium information in one article. I know that We have Category:FIFA World Cup stadiums. But In order to obtain detailed infomation of each world cup stadiums, We have to clik the each World Cup articles or Each World Cup stadium articles. This cause inconvenience and waste times.

Third purpose is to give the statistics information about FIFA World Cup stadiums. For examples, venue with most matches, venue with most final, venue with most attendance record and so on.Footwiks (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can expand this article with useful information. Please don't delete and expand this article together.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just replicated content from the main articles in a type of list form, all the GNG is also replicated from FIFA tournament articles. I see this as an unnecessary content folk. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NLIST. Each stadium is notable. A list of stadiums used in the world cup is notable. The list size is not unmanageable (around 10? per each 4 years - so some 375 for a century and a half. This is not a fork of FIFA World Cup (which doesn't have a list of stadiums, nor do I think it should), and is a valid spinoff.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments@Icewhiz: WP:REDUNDANTFORK (obviously I need to dumb this down, all information is copied from main World Cup articles like 2018 FIFA World Cup, 2014 FIFA World Cup, etc.)Govvy (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments@Govvy: - a fork of what? A list article is not a fork of a category - you need to show a main space article this is a fork of.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments In regards to modified comment - a list compiled from multiple 2018 FIFA World Cup, 2014 FIFA World Cup, . *::Comments(~21 articles in all) - is not a fork.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Erm, it doesn't matter how many articles you take the content from, if you're taking content from one article, or multiple articles, it's still content forking. The point of your article is to keep because of WP:NLIST? This argument is not good enough. You need to be much clear in your argument, all the content and all the citations have been copied from every FIFA World Cup article from each year, this is clearly forking from multiple articles. If a reader can go to any of those articles and view exactly the same content (What stadiums where selected) for that year, Why do we need this list, simply saying this list should be kept on an argument of NLIST is an invalid response. Hence WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I really suggest you review all the available content on wikipedia before you come to a conclusion. Govvy (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "List of FIFA World Cup stadiums" instead, which makes more sense. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 10:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST, but I agree that it needs to be renamed because it is nothing more than a list. Tillerh11 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it provides a good contextualization, but renaming makes sense. /Julle (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and rename (per DtN). Personally, I think the article is a mess, and could do with the content going into a table, but that's another issue for those who care about such things. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments @Lugnuts: What exactly is your argument for keeping the list? @Julle: Good contextualisation? That's already good enough in each World Cup article, what about whats on the current 2018 FIFA World Cup or even 1966 FIFA World Cup? We already have the same information there. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:CLN? It's explained in there. As the nom is suggesting it should be deleted because a category exists, I'm referring to a long-standing guide against such a rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: There is no point in reading WP:CLN, The original rationale is floored, however did you look at all the World Cup articles? Has anyone looked at the World Cup articles? Has nobody seen the content rip? Govvy (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but prune) as List of FIFA World Cup stadiums. However, how useful it is to have the pictures of the stadiums here, and make the maps smaller. This would result in a more readable article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and the article properly sourced, meeting WP:NLIST. The fact that a category overlaps with the article is irrelevant. Per WP:CLN, the category and list exist in synergistic fashion, with the list providing details, pictures, context and sources that are impossible to provide in a category. I'd have no objection to prefixing "List of" to the article title to add some clarity and consistency. Any pruning or editing should be addressed at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it should be kept, it should be organized differently, e.g. one larger list with images etc, that is sortable on capacity, number of matches etc. The maps are irrelevant when it is about all stadiums in history. CRwikiCA talk 02:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale set out by the creator, and other editors comments. This looks like a good piece of work. However, @Footwiks: you need to attribute the content that you have copied from all of the other articles. Please do this as soon as possible. Nzd (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 11:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:LISTN; a reasonable cross-categorisation & relevant content. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. "Some of the discussions above are confusing" is an understatement. Essentially, established editors and IPs disagree about whether coverage of these (similar) run-of-the-mill casual video games in (similar) gaming websites is sufficient to establish notability. There's not enough depth to the discussion to establish consensus about this. I recommend nominating only one of these articles at a time to allow for more focused discussion. Sandstein 19:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst

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

Not independently notable. The main article for all 14 games is Mystery Case Files, but I don't think any of the individual games in the series are notable on their own. Any referenced information could be merged, but the main article already contains a summary of each game in the series. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MCF general

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, thanks for that. To be clear I could see that some were probably better reviewed than others. I considered it a good idea to decide what to with all them at the same time. Because Key to Ravenhearst was a new article, but clearly someone carrying on the set and I thought it unfair to look at it isolation. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the sources provided by the IP and Frapril are not reliable (some not independent). Rather than try to answer every single case, I'll make a comment here. The closer should take these comments into account for each article. (Conversely, my sources are all listed on WP:VG/RS as reliable sources.) Summary:
- rgamereview, allaboutcasualgame, gamemile, tlibuild (tlibuild looks like a mirror), mysterveil, gamecola have no indication of reliability. No editorial policy and no staff byline in some cases. With some, it's not obvious to me whether the articles are self-published in essence.
- casualgameguides and elephant games do not look independent. The former's about page directly lists "Big Fish Games".
- kdhnews.com/blogs is evidently self-published. lockergnome looks the same.
- 148apps and jayisgames are situational on WP:VG/S and probably should be avoided for showing notability.
- Conversely, lapresse looks okay. Byline, professional appearance. (Quite a few phone numbers.)
- 4players might be okay. Some archives at WT:VG/S seems to indicate its come up before but no commentary or discussion on it. androidauthority might similarly be okay. I'm not enthused about the quantity of editors as an indication of reliability. Their about page at least mentions editorial quality, but doesn't explain how or why.
- jeuxvideo, indiegames, gamezebo are listed on WP:VG/S as reliable.
--Izno (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could say the same for Gamezebo.205.233.125.123 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gamezebo is listed as reliable on the WT:VG/S, that source is fine. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I referenced it myself below. Added explicitly here. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So all the other sources are wrong for Wikipedia? 174.93.229.215 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into detail on each source, it seems its only acceptable if listed as reliable at WT:VG/S. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We need to see the hallmarks of reliability: independence, editorial policy, and general professionalism. The sources that the IPs have provided do not do so almost categorically (there are a few that are okay, obviously). WP:VG/RS does not include every site that displays those attributes (for this domain), so saying "only VG/RS" isn't right either. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it’s limit the source! There is a group that analys them for more chance? 205.233.125.123 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does limit the list. See above comment to Frayae. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All about Casual Game is one of the modern website in the casual speciality and he is in no list, so it better to ask the moderator about it.205.233.125.123 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the list, and would not be added to the list, because of the reasons I provided in my initial comment here. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The site is more used than Gamezebo in the industry. 205.233.125.123 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is not based (solely) on usage. --Izno (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean these site are (All about Casual Game and the other are situational?205.233.125.123 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying the sites you provided do not indicate that they are reliable, and so we treat them as unreliable. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What About Modojo & 4players? 205.233.125.219 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that 4players might be okay. A look at modojo puts it in the unreliable category. --Izno (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Killeen Daily Herald kdhnews look professionnal for me. 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I think that this will end up much as Izno has indicated in each section, with some redirected and some kept. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We must search more source. Delete MillionHeir and/or Malgrave, they are spin off of the séries. 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s not because all source used are not good for Wikipedia that they are not notables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are notables, but the source on the reliable list is for the core and hardcore playing. So it make the casual playing less notable. So if it’s the case why not delete all Casual playing released articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My initial idea was that the whole series could be covered in one article about the whole series. This would include a summary of each game and some detail based on what sources are available. The spin off games could be covered elsewhere. This should at least be considered as an option. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye not redirect them, but delete them to keep the possibility to make pages for them when it will have more reliables sources. 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any pages that are redirected can be turned back into a article whenever further sources become available that show it's notability. The pages are unlikely to be deleted regardless of the outcome because the titles are valid redirects to the main series article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how we can show them if it’s happen?205.233.125.219 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add a note to the article talk page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Bundle, I hope it help. 205.233.125.219 (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, delete Key to Ravenhearst and Ravenhearst Unlocked until we find more sources. 72.10.133.225 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MillionHeir

MillionHeir reviews: GameSpot, IGN, Wired, Engadget, NintendoLife, GamesRadar, GameZone, VideoGamer, EW (?). Keep MillionHeir as I think it is clearly notable. I can probably pull up a similar quantity of references for the other games (but maybe not); please ensure you performed WP:BEFORE sufficiently. (One way to do that is to use WP:VG/CSE.) --Izno (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
La Presse 205.233.125.123 (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malgrave Incident

Malgrave Incident reviews: NintendoLife, GameSpot, IGN, GamesRadar, Wired Q&A, Wired, ~~Adventure Gamers~~, Nintendo World Report. This is also a keep. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strike Adventure Gamers per WT:VG/S. --Izno (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dire Grove, Sacred Grove

Dire Grove, Sacred Grove reviews: Gamezebo. This is a reasonable redirect to Mystery Case Files. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Review: All About Casual Game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapril (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
kdhnews.com 205.233.125.123 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Review: 148apps Keep Frapril (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget Speak 205.233.125.123 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CultureFly i hope it’s good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.229.215 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modojo 174.93.229.215 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
being MVP 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to as above. The link posted above do not lead towards notability Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable in the Casual Spheres (The sources used are from this sphere). if we search on your reliable Sources, sure it's not Notable because your reliable sources are for the Hardcore Playing and all the sources for the casual playing (Know or Unknow) are unreliable on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.219 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dumeegamer.com 205.233.125.219 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
mommykatandkids.com 205.233.125.219 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Invasion Game Community 205.233.125.219 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
app recs 205.233.125.219 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
androidokra.com 205.233.125.219 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fate's Carnival

Fate's Carnival reviews: Gamezebo. Another reasonable redirect to Mystery Case Files. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The game page on developer website Elephant Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapril (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews should be from independent sites. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review: All About Casual Game maybe keep
Gamemile Keep 205.233.125.123 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one is still weak. The Metacritic link is a placeholder "No score yet - based on 0 Critics", so doesn't count. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the MEtacritics links are not allowas source? 174.93.229.215 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be usable if there was a critic review. No review means no information. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We got indie games. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Metacritic as itself does not promote notability. The reviews contained however, may do. Nothing to prove this is notable yet. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville

No reviews that I saw online. Redirect for now, but I suspect there will be magazine coverage of this one given its age. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jayisgames it's a weak source but it's a beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapril (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gamezebo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.123 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No prejudice if sources exist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key to Ravenhearst

Reviews: Gamezebo. Redirect. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Review: All About Casual Game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapril (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rgamereview.com Frapril (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s good source [29] Frapril (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gamemile 205.233.125.123 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PR Newswire 174.93.229.215 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KDHNews 205.233.125.219 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect none of the above are reliable sources for notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable in the Casual Sphere (The source are from this sphere). if we search on your reliable Sources, sure it's not Notable because your reliable sources are for the Hardcore Playing and all the sources for the casual playing (Know or Unknow) are unreliables on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.219 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dumeegamer.com 205.233.125.219 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Games without articles

In case that someone want or would create articles about these games. Ravenhearst Unlockes reviews: All About Casual Game, Broken Hour reviews: All About Casual Game, The Black Veil reviews: All About Casual Game, The Revenant's Hunt Previews: All About Casual Game, Reviews: All About Casual Game. I continue to search sources for Rewind.Frapril —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created a article on Ravenhearst Unlocked, but I add the AfD band to be sure but I don’t put it in that list. I hope it’s ok. Frapril (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery Case Files: Broken Hour. Can't find much more, a trailer on IGN, no metacritic reviews, and this adventuregamers listing. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenhearst Unlocked. There's a gamezebo review and adventuregamers.com. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another Review: Casual Game Reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.219 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Veil reviews: Dynamic States 205.233.125.219 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rewind reviews: rgamereview.com 205.233.125.123 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note This may need to be reviewed and closed by an admin with some familiarity with the genre. Some of the discussions above are confusing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Demography (journal)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reasons given on the article's talk page:

Journal indexed in selective databases, including PubMed and EBSCO
Notability of journal indicated by citation of secondary source on spatial demography citing the journal as valid source of information on the subject.
See above bullet point - secondary source cited in the article
Per WP:NJournals - criterion 1 and 2 met by information in above-mentioned information, so does meet WP:NJournals requirements.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is faulty. EBSCO databases are not selective. PubMed indexing is trivial: it only concerns those manuscripts that have been deposited in PubMed Central, which is not selective either. The "secondary source" is an article that does not mention this journal at all, except in a listing of resources in an appendix. Hence, PROD reason still stands, this meets neither GNG nor NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One question and one comment apropos this response. First, does the Academic Journals WikiProject, or any comparable authority, provide a list of selective databases? WP:NJournals doesn't seem to provide one, stating under criteria 1, "Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability". Further, Spatial Demography is included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index; is this not a selective database? Second, the paper by authors Stephen A. Matthews and Daniel M. Parker entitled "Progress in Spatial Demography", cited as evidence of notability, mentions Spatial Demography on page 272, in both the introduction and a footnote. To say that the article "does not mention this journal at all, except in a listing of resources in an appendix" is erroneous. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESCI is not selective enough. It has been shown to even contain some predatory journals (not saying this is a predatory one, just citing this as support for ESCI not being very selective). And I did indeed miss the in-passing mention of this journal on p. 272 of the cited article, but that's all it is, an in-passing mention of a journal that at that point was only in the planning stages yet. (So it's of course not surprising that there's no in depth discussion of this journal yet). As for a list of selective databases, no, we don't have that. It depends on the field. For religion journals, ATLA is considered a selective database. For this journal, I'd say Scopus would be their best bet to get covered. But for the moment, they aren't. So at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [30] for a summary of ESCI, particularly this passage [31]. WP:NJOURNALS#G.b applies here. The paper that mentions this journal simply states the journal exists, and offers no commentary on the journal itself beyond that. This is trivial coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely fails WP:NJOURNALS. Simply put, this is a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG.-Kishfan (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. M. Sisk

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actor turned manager and designer whose only discernible claim of notability for either of those occupations is that he exists. This is written more like a prosified résumé than an encyclopedia article, and is completely unsourced. The only reason I'm not speedying this is that it's existed in pretty much the same form, with no major changes apart from some text formatting and category refinement, since 2006. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Acting career consists of about 15 rather minor roles. No indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 15:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anusuya

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

I didn't find any information on English about her. The only info is from fictional TV Series. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well strike me dead, I should have read that source in more detail when reviewing the page. They clearly call her one of "his fictional parents – Queen Anusuya of Takshashila (Taxila or Taxiles) and King Bamni of Paurav Rashtra". Made-up, delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominated the draft for the equally fictional king for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bamni. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at first I thought it was Anusuya but then I found this is about a character on Indian TV. Probably not needed in the encyclopedia. Dial911 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue. @Arthistorian1977: Draft should go to WP:MfD, thanks (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bamni

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

I didn't find any information in English about him. The only info is from fictional TV Series Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's my mistake. I didn't notice it's draft, since I was redirected to it from an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmila Melissa Yogalingam

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

Seems like this is a self-promo page. Subject does not seem to be notable, and almost all of the claims and content in the writeup is PEACOCK and not sourced, 2 out of the 4 sources are actually links to the song being played with no way to attribute it to the subject anyway. Same problem occurs with the article of the song she supposedly wrote. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet neither WP:CREATIVE nor BASIC/GNG presently. Sam Sailor 08:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is trying hard, but is not yet WP:Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, secondary sources provided. Dial911 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm interpreting the OP's blanking of the page as a concession that this character from a work of fiction cannot clear the notability hurdles, so this is more WP:SNOW than WP:CSD#G7. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Kanishk

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

Speedy was declined due to being part of Royal Family, but the fact I didn't find any information on English about him. The only info is from fictional TV Series. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable fictional character. I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that speedy was declined because he is a Royal. 2Joules (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:02, 5 July 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 keep. Enigma^msg 05:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships

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

This list of original research is a POV fork of List of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships. OCNative (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wow, I'm very surprising this has been nominated for deletion. Floored quite honestly. By deleting this list, we will be losing a significant amount of notable information. We would be losing information on the history of college football championships and the history of AIAW women's championahip before women's sports fell under the NCAA. Multiple lists with this same notable information would need to be created, which defeats the purpose of deleting this list. You would have to guess which teams won the before mentioned national championships and try to piece this information together instead of having it in one place. In addition, this list is well-sourced. This list is a history of college sports national championships that needs to be kept. spatms (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure, I created this page, though I've only made one edit since 2014. I'm very surprised about this nomination. As the page states, it fulfills the need for a compilation that includes (1) men's college champions before the NCAA began sponsoring championships in the 1930s, (2) women's college champions before the NCAA recognized them in 1982, and (3) sports that have never opted for NCAA championships, including the two oldest and perhaps most notable – college football and men's rowing. The page is kept up to date, very well-sourced, and indeed cross-references many other wikipedia pages, such as Intercollegiate sports team champions#Rowing and College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, which are themselves no more or less original research than this page. (As a side point, the latter page is probably misnamed because it includes pre-NCAA champions and current FCS teams.) As the creator of the page, I can also speak to the "POV fork" allegation that is the stated basis for the nomination, by saying that there was no disagreement of any sort, at any time, about the content of List of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships. It's an odd basis for nomination – I, as someone with an interest in history, merely saw a historic gap to be filled on wikipedia about championships outside the scope of that article. —Kgwo1972 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely misnamed by using NCAA in the title along with championships. This should be the subheading of the True NCAA title list not the other way around. Complete bullshit. 2600:1700:1110:14F0:E559:4163:4F2B:F540 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am extremely surprised to see this page nominated for deletion. If anyone thinks it is a duplicate of another article, they are sadly mistaken. This list is very well sourced with numerous citations. It is kept up-to-date. ( disclosure: I am active in keeping it up-to-date.) The scope of the list is much broader than just a list of NCAA title winners. This list, as others have mentioned above, includes much information about pre-NCAA winners, women' s sports winners, and non-NCAA sports winners. For this and all the reasons mentioned by others above, this article should be kept. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject. I'm not sure what nom means by "POV fork." And the POV of the article is a content dispute anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instaknow Inc

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

Not particularly notable company. Coverage is poor, mainly tech blogs, drive-by PR nods, some patents (which count as primary sources) and links to funding notifications by government agencies. All date from the early 2000's. Nothing recent as far as I can see. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No ongoing news coverage. Google books mainly has directory entries. Sources in the article are not independent of the company (e.g. patents).Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't seem to be notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it exists doesn't provide a meaningful claim of notability and no sources could be found in a Google search that would support such a claim. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article supported largely by routine announcements and patent listings, which are merely confirmed by references and do not establish a company's notability. Enough to verify a company going about its business but insufficient WP:RS coverage for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough sources to justify an entry at present. Good catch, Famousdog!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MC Fioti

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

Overly promotional article of a non notable run of the mill musician. 2Joules (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. The discography lists several records released through Warner Music, a major label. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 1, the Christ Junkie

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable musician. He is a university student who sings at gigs. The award winning stuff is either made up, or the awards are non notable and are never mentioned by media. 2Joules (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor references and barely a mention a mention on interwebs. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and subsequently WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO and fails the wp:gng as I could not find substantial coverage of independent, reliable sources online. Zingarese (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom notable and Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Emily Khine (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:TOOSOON. Without prejudice to recreation, after launch, if reviews establish notability. Just Chilling (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-Love

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

~~Cruft and promo pieces prop up this article of an upcoming Tv Series. Should be deleted due to lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources. 2Joules (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blockedsockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly in violation of WP:TOOSOON, as this source [32] states that even the promo for the show is upcoming. Also fails WP:NOTE, as we have no way of knowing if the upcoming show will have any long-term impacts.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be significant coverage of this TV show, although I am not sure that it indicates filming has started (using WP:NFF as a reference guideline). In that case, I would have to say weak delete for this article. -- Henry ^TALK 02:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SamHolt6 and WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as (graciously) WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monument to Peter and Fevronia (Bataysk)

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

Non notable monument. There are a dozen or more monuments to these saints all over the country. Why is is this notable? No reason. Fails WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references show that it passes GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Eastmain There are four references. The first one is a local online paper. The website is ranked 43,574 in Russia. Hardly a source good enough for wikipedia. The second is a simple pdf brochure. The third and fourth sources are just as unreliable. This is a local thing, nothing worthy of a wikipedia entry. When a liturgy attracts only 100 people, you can safely say that the event is actually a non event. 2Joules (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat inclined to merge to The Tale of Peter and Fevronia which perhaps could use a section on such monuments (this is apparently not the only one). Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable in Wikipedia because there is coverage about it. That's how Wikipedia works. Creating a list of similar monuments elsewhere is an okay idea, but that does not mean that this one would have to be redirected/merged to that list. This is fairly long, with details and four sources that I personally cannot really evaluate, but which makes more than be comfortably be included as an item in a list-article.

Also, I somewhat question the usefulness of fishing through topics of monuments in Russia in order to find ones where one has no capacity to appreciate them, then nominating them for deletion. If one doesn't have the language skills especially to consider the available sources and/or to search for more sourcing per wp:BEFORE, what is the use of having an AFD? Is the point to direct the attention of Russian-speaking editors to these various topics? wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP comes to mind. Hope no one really minds this complaint. --Doncram (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Ka Rishta

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

An upcoming movie, which we should know about after it is released. WP:CRYSTALBALL 2Joules (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A reference [33] in the article states that prinicipal photography is scheduled to begin later this month (July 2018). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heteronormativity in Engineering

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

Article which is written like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and strays off-topic in several areas. I'm a gay man and I do admit that heteronormativity is a thing, but we hardly need a separate article about the individual impact of heteronormativity in every individual field of human endeavour separately from the article we already have about the general concept of heteronormativity. Encyclopedic writing is not done in the same tone or style as writing a university essay, but this more closely resembles the latter. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an essay. I personally could make all sorts of pungent comments on the social outlook of engineers, but this simply isn't going to ever turn into an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTESSAY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like someone's term paper. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covepoint Capital Advisors

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

Non-notable hedge fund. Does not meet WP:CORP and violates WP:NOTADVERT. Rusf10 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Moelis

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

Delete as a promotional article and the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Although there are references, no in-depth coverage exists in reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promotionalism only: "under his leadership..." Etc. Sources are passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent on the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kartar Cheema

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

Yet another run-of-the-mill minor actor trying to boost his career by having a Wikipedia article. Autobiography of actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR; a couple of the films where he may have had a leading role have Wikipedia articles but the films are actually of very doubtful notability, and it is hard to say whether any of the roles were in fact major. The sources in the article are primary. bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 07:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and lacks significant coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Group

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

Promotion based on non-independent promotional sources, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Covert_advertising, WP:UPE SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1. No mention of "Naked Group".

Ref 2. No mention of "Naked Group.

Ref 3. Not independent, no prose, just a directory source.

Maybe Refs 1 and 2 are supposed to support "Naked Stables" or whatever the company created by Grant Horsfield (at Afd)? In any case, these references are advertorials featuring interview quotes of Grant Horsfield the company CEO, and are not independent.

Clearly, the company and CEO are actively engaged in covert advertising. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Covert_advertising. Both Grant Horsfield and Naked Group are WP:CORP-failing covert advertising and, noting also WP:UPE, should be deleted with prejudice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NCORP but I am not sure that the article creator has been doing this covertly as I had no difficulty whatsoever in finding the COI. I think this is a case of good faith COI editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The author may very well have innocently and faithfully accepted the company's native advertising. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Edit Respecting the fact that all articles will stand or fail on their own merits and acknowledging that this deletion is not primarily because of COI suspicions, the question is do these references withstand WP scrutiny as "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources". In the WP guidelines New York Times is given as inherently "reliable, independent, and secondary". I would put the Wall Street Journal in that category as well, as I would The Guardian. Is it significant though? I would argue yes. Both of these articles situate naked as one of the important progenitors of green tourism in China. Neither of these are fancy hotel reviews, but instead researched pieces by credible authors. The Bloomberg article which references naked Hub, which is the other main business arm of the naked Group, also fulfill the criteria of "reliable, independent, and secondary". It is a significant piece reporting a major acquisition reported from multiple sources. I acknowledge that in the article it was not made clear the relationship between the "naked Group" and "naked Retreats" and "naked Hub". WP is clear in the policy of no inherited notability. I would therefore recommend that this piece be re-edited as just pertaining the resorts business, and allowed to stand on its own in that regard. Leeallenmack (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)— Leeallenmack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Leeallenmack (talk • ::contribs) has made other edits and additions to WP outside this topic.

@Leeallenmack: when you say this deletion is not primarily because of COI suspicions does the use of the word suspicions mean that you are denying having a COI? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion is already agreed to depend on whether the links fulfill the WP criteria for notability. Whether you believe there is COI is immaterial.

- There are nine references, and I have taken the view that the top three are the best references for attesting notability, and that if they fail, then all the rest fail too. Perhaps you can point out a different set of three references that are all of independent, secondary, reliable, and cover the topic in depth?

By independent, I expect that the information presented in the reference did not come straight from the company or its CEO or an employee. This rules out interviews.
I also expect that the commentary is critical (which does not mean negative), and includes mentions of strengths and weaknesses, and non-condescending mentions of competitors. If the coverage is 100% positive push, with either silence or condescension on competitors, then I call it a secretly paid piece. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Covert_advertising. This is very common, and I suspect this is exactly what we are looking at here, in the sources, even if you are not personally connected. "New York Times" and "Wall Street Journal" do not equate to "independent.

Secondary source. It must make commentary, not just repeat facts. I look for adjectives that are clearly the opinion of the writer.

Reliably. You seem to have that one OK, these are reputable publishers.

Cover the topic in depth. I expect two running sentences speaking directly to the topic, not a mention of the topic in relation to a different focus of the paragraph. Your sources are lengthily dedicated to the topic, which is overkill for "in depth" and is typical of a paid promotional piece. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your assessment. WSJ and The Guardian have strict editorial policies and anything paid is clearly marked as such. These articles are not hotel reviews and they are not interviews. I do agree that these articles do not mention naked Group, only naked Retreats and the relationship between the two is not clearly established.Leeallenmack (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If WSJ and The Guardian make a story directly from company material, such as from CEO or communications staff interviews or press releases, then they are not a third party source. This is the case with the first sources, and you have failed to specify better sources. Naked Group? Naked Retreats? Are they not synonymous? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft & likely UPE, based on behavioural evidence, including at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per SJoe and nom.Fails the rigorous standards of NCORP.∯WBG^converse 05:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Both of these pages are created by people with screamingly WP:APPARENTCOI that is being resolutely undisclosed; not to mention the battering of this AfD.

Both article subjects are on the border, generally falling on the "not" side with respect to NCORP, and both have typical characteristics of promotion; the sourcing on naked Hub is almost entirely press releases or chunalism. In these situations we generally delete and salt as Wikipedia cannot and will be used as a vehicle for promotion, especially by people who flaunt the PAID policy and COI guideline. And it is not worth the community's time to fight against the kind of behavior to maintain the neutrality, when the subject is borderline notable. These pages teach readers nothing.

Am pinging those who have !voted with respect to the bundled nomination: User:SmokeyJoe, User:Domdeparis, User:Leeallenmac, User:K.e.coffman, User:Winged Blades of Godric Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind. Native advertising like this is potentially illegal in United States law, the law that governs Wikipedia, and we absolutely cannot permit it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify, as I hadn't understood that there was no separate discussion for Naked Hub: delete that too, for exactly the same reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nandanandan Das

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

Retired civil engineer that worked for the Government of Odisha. I have found no significant coverage, suggesting subject fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. No criterion in WP:NACADEMICS is met. Article was PRODed and dePRODed. Sam Sailor 07:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, I am trying to get as much information and reference on him possible. He has significant contribution to Indian State Odisha and others. Thanks. --Pritiranjan Tripathy (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further information and references added. Thanks--Pritiranjan Tripathy (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One book and one paper by subject as well as one paper by somebody else that quotes a paper by Das have been added. Are any sources available that talk about Das? Sam Sailor 11:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the information in the article doesn't pass verification (e.g. 400 works authored). In my BEFORE I do not see enough coverage, and I do not see how he passes any PROF criteria. The administrative position does not seem to pass NPOL. Coverage is not close to SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Live) on the Inside Tour

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

A list of concert dates does not satisfy WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 08:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current references are run-of-the-mill coverage generated by press releases. I was unable to find significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)√[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a general consensus that coverage is insufficient to ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Law (politician)

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

Tagged for notability ever since it was created, over a year ago. As mayor of a city of about 100,000, WP:POLITICIAN says he is not inherently notable, but could be notable if he has received significant press coverage. The footnote elaborates, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

Searches of the usual Google types, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, ProQuest and Questia turned up one solid piece in The Seattle Times,[34] a re-election announcement in the local Renton Reporter,[35], a 250-word AP article announcing the sale of his publishing business,[36] and routine coverage of the "said the mayor" and "was in attendance" variety. Unless better sources can be found, I don't believe this clears the bar of notability. Worldbruce (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made some edits to the article to add references and clean up the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominator is right there's a couple okay sources, but the sourcing's really scarce. He doesn't have presumed notability because he's a mayor, even of a six-figure population city. A couple sources I thought would be okay ([37], which is actually already in the article) aren't significant. SportingFlyer talk 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very little coverage outside of brief mentions, and not inherently notable as a local official per WP:POLITICIAN. Not enough sourcing to establish notability. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Renton is certainly large enough that a genuinely substantial and well-referenced article about a mayor could be kept, but it is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing. The amount of sourcing shown here is not enough to get him over the bar, however — it simply amounts to the expected and routine local coverage that every mayor of everywhere could always show, with the only source that looks even slightly out of the ordinary on the surface (because the citation is to the Associated Press rather than a specific newspaper in Renton's local media landscape) being one that just namechecks his existence in the process of being primarily about something else besides him. So it doesn't assist his notability at all, and none of the other sources are "out of the ordinary" enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what we should be expecting of coverage about an independently elected Mayor of a large suburban city (over 100,000). WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that we expect more than name-check coverage of mayors cities of regional prominence (undefined, but previously considered to be greater than 50,000 [but that standard has been significantly degraded over the past couple of years]). In this case, as noted, the article contains a couple articles that go toward being significant coverage (about his life), and numerous articles that describe his record as Mayor (from the local weekly - the Renton Reporter). While we might tend to discount this local coverage as WP:ROUTINE the volume of coverage is significant, especially considering the size of the city and the subject's tenure. What we don't appear to have is any nationalization of coverage about the subject, or a second long-form profile. --Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, what's most important isn't necessarily the number of sources in and of itself or even how much they do or don't nationalize, but how much actual substance they enable us to say about the person beyond just technical verification that he holds the mayoralty. For example, Brian Bigger doesn't actually cite many more sources than this in its current form (nine to seven isn't that big a difference, although the fact that two of them are extralocal helps) — but even if more expansion is still needed there, the sources that have been chosen already support a much more substantive article with much more useful and relevant and encyclopedic detail than this one contains. Sources that nominally verify the fact that a mayor won the election simply don't do as much toward making a mayor notable as sources that are actually about him and his agenda and his successes and failures in the mayor's chair. Nationalizing sources certainly help, but they're not a mandatory condition — a mayor can clear NPOL #2 on purely local sources too, if there are enough of them present to support a genuinely detailed article that says much more substantial things about him than just "was elected and then reelected and then reelected again". For another example of a mayor who is well-sourced as notable despite her sourcing not going very non-local and her city not being much larger than Renton either, see also Nancy Diamond — again, the difference is that her sourcing is being used to support genuine substance about her political agenda as mayor, not just to verify and reverify that she existed as a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To restate, to meet WP:NPOL, an article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence would need adequate sources (in total) that provides a framework to create an article to sufficiently describe the subject and/or their agenda/actions as mayor. Those sources may be purely local, but national sources help. --Enos733 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baiscally, yes. More than anything else, the real test for whether a mayor is notable enough isn't really the number of sources or their geographic range per se — those can be factors, but they neither make nor break the deal all by themselves (for example, a nationalized source can still just be a glancing namecheck of the mayor's existence in an article about something else, and having one full-on biography of the mayor published in book form can potentially count for more than ten newspaper articles.) The ultimate test is whether the sources support enough substance about the mayor to make the article worth bothering to read. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article shows no sustained, indepth coverage of the type that can actually build a meaningful article. The fact that this guy was able to be reelected to office unopposed at one point I think says it all that this is just not an important executive office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that there is the sustained coverage of the subject in the Renton Reporter, chronicling the subject's career. Over the past week, I've been adding bits and pieces to the article, adding sources and details as appropriate. As Bearcat mentioned above, for a mayor of a city of regional prominence, the test is whether there is enough substance to write a complete article. There are (at least) ten search pages of articles about the subject, from his support of a bus rapid transit system in Renton to support the relocation of the Renton library (and a smaller list of articles describing Law's actions in the Seattle Times. The subject also regularly writes an op-ed for the Renton Reporter, and that material, while cannot be used for notability, assists with putting substance in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the Renton Reporter articles show notability at all, as those are articles that you would expect to be written of any mayor in any town. SportingFlyer talk 02:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that that for cities of regional prominence, as Bearcat and I discussed above, the expectation is an ability to write a substantive article about the mayor, including his life and career. Under those circumstances, the volume of local, independent reporting is something that should be considered in evaluating the merits of the AfD. As I alluded to, there is also a decent amount of coverage of the mayor (and the mayor's actions in Renton) in the Seattle Times. And while some of the coverage is of the more routine nature, but included is also coverage of the mayor's state of the city addresses (which show priorities and accomplishments), and actions and issues that the city and the mayor were involved in. --Enos733 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage being predominantly or exclusively "local" isn't the dealbreaker in and of itself — nationalized coverage helps a mayor's notability, certainly, but it's not a mandatory condition that all mayors have to have to qualify for articles at all. Even the Bill de Blasios and John Torys and Sadiq Khans and Eric Garcettis of the world still get the bulk of their coverage in the local media rather than national or international sources, because local media are whose job it is to cover the mayor pretty much daily instead of just once in a while when something especially huge happens. As I explained above, the make-or-break condition for a mayor isn't really the localness or non-localness of the sourcing per se, but the ability to cite enough of whatever coverage exists to write a genuinely substantive article that's actually useful and informative and worth taking the time to read, instead of just a boilerplate "John Smith is a mayor who exists, he used to run a hardware store, he has two kids, the end." The problem with most mayors of cities this size isn't that nationalizing sources are a base requirement that a mayor can never be notable at all without having — the problem is that editors often don't put in the effort to do anything more with the article than "he exists, here's one source which nominally demonstrates that he won the election and a couple of others in which his name gets mentioned in a tangential context that doesn't actually add any value to the article beyond reverifying that he's the mayor, the end". Local coverage can be enough for a mayor, as long as you actually use enough of it to create a substantive article about his political impact, rather than relying solely on election results and articles about him cutting the ribbon to officially open a dog park — the question of whether the sourcing is localized or nationalized carries more weight in some situations (e.g. small towns) than others (e.g. cities that are large enough to claim some degree of prominence in their own right), but isn't necessarily always as important as the question of whether it adds anything substantive to the article or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, thanks for that. I'm not fully convinced that this has quite crossed the line into keepability yet, but you're definitely moving it in the right direction by starting to add some content about significant things he did in the position. I'm open to flipping to a keep if that can be expanded a bit more. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few sources about his publishing career. I also found a dead link suggestive of a long-form profile in CityVision, the publication of the Association of Washington Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Renton may be bigger than the usual small city we see in these mayoral AFDs, but when all is said and done, it's a suburb/fringe of Seattle, and this fellow got the typical and local coverage of a term in which nothing really remarkable happened that would make him more generally notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's notability criteria exists so we can write a whole article about a subject - WP:WHYN. I do not believe it is our job to determine whether the subject did something remarkable or not, nor should we consider geography as a reason to include or exclude a topic. I'm not sure why I'm so passionate about this article, but I feel if this article (in its current form nearly 500 words about different parts of his career [and more that could be added], and greater than a WP:stub) is deleted, then we must reconsider WP:NPOL and should rewrite WP:POLOUTCOMES as it relates to local elected officials (and even then, there we come back to the relationship between WP:NPOL and WP:GNG), as there are lots of local mayors (including those that Bearcat mentioned above) that would merit reconsideration under a new formulation. --Enos733 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination given the lack of clear voting in this discussion. However after two relists, it's time to close this AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oyako Day

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

not clearly notable, sources are tenuous, akin to WP:NEOLOGISM Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming that it would be 親子デー, I looked for this and found lots of oyako days, this one not among them. But instead it's 親子の日, whose website is here; or in English, here. ja:WP has a (non-) article about it (as is normal in ja:WP, this is a series of lists uninterrupted by any citation of a reliable source). -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again). As is normal in Japan, there's little available without payment on the web that isn't either (a) merely promotional or (b) mere bloggery and similar chit-chat. But yes it exists and yes it's written up in Mainichi Shinbun: for example, in an article here that we can read the beginning of without paying and all of if we do pay. I'd guess that somebody interested could find enough material via 毎索, the Mainichi Shinbunsha database, to put together a short article. However, that person isn't me. ¶ Now that we know what this is called in Japanese, and therefore how to look it up in Japanese, the situation may have changed since Kintetsubuffalo nominated it for deletion. (If Kintetsubuffalo then knew its Japanese name, they didn't say so.) I'd be interested in a new comment from Kintetsubuffalo. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Opinions are highly diverse and the OP seems to have de-facto withdrawn their own nomination. Move discussions etc can of course continue on the appropriate talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADvantage Framework

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

No indication of meeting WP:NCORP - sources mention the fact that the company's product was used but do not discuss the company or its products in depth. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NCORP. I see a few press releases and some passing mentions. Basie (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Revise. This is more complicated then it would seem to begin with. As an engineer myself (I do not work with this product but know people in other fields who do), I feel like this page should be kept but perhaps revised. First, let's talk about something important the name is NO longer Advantage Frameworks. If you look here you can see in the first question that the name was actually changed to ADEPT Framework. Here is actually a article from when it had it's named changed. As the article points out, this software is used by some of the largest government organizations and fortune 500 companies (Boeing, NASA, Rolls Royce etc.). Here is another link, this time from NASA about the evolution of a simulator for a Pilot-force feel system. If you go to page 13, you will see it mentions ADvantage (not yet renamed as of the creation of the article.) as listed in the article. Specifically, it talks about how it is used to link multiple computer programs together. I will not pretend to understand exactly what the use of this software is to the bone (again, this is not my field) but in several fields of engineering it is used widely. As for WP:NCORP, if you look under what is considered to be "Substantial coverage" it includes the quote, "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,". Here and here are all examples of case studies and scholarly article written by other companies such as Gulf Stream and Boeing. These are, in my belief, reliable secondary sources talking about the impact of the ADEPT framework. Also, here and here are two other articles about ADEPT Framework. They are brief, and small but I will submit them for consideration just because why not. Overall, I do not believe deletion to be the best route for this page. Either a page for the company (ADI) needs to be made and merged or this page should remain. I can easily see engineers in other fields be either: A) Curious about the software and looking to get an overview. B) Curious about what it is. or C) Just looking for general information. Either of the options, do not merit deletion in my opinion. The product is important enough to warrant a page. It would be a shame and, again, in my opinion, against the vision of Wikipedia if we simply delete articles just because the require updating and reworking. This articles clearly is in need of some TLC, I think we should give it to it. Twinky995 (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twinky995, I appreciate your advocacy for the article and I am certainly in no tearing hurry to delete it. However, I'm not especially convinced by the RS you mention and I wonder if you might like to comment further on them? One you mentioned, Evolution of a Simulator Pilot Force-Feel System: contains passing mentions to ADvantage, but is not about it. Further, most of the sources linked on ADI's site are either primary/promotional, or are not about ADvantage/ADEPT. Did I miss one? I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent RS here. Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems like there may be a notable topic here - I some publications from dtic.mil and NASA for Adept framework. The article should probably be moved to the current name. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new information kindly unearthed by @Twinky995: I'm inclined to withdraw my deletion nomination and would recommend renaming the page to ADEPT Framework, or merging the content into an article about the company. Given there have been other !votes for delete, I won't close the discussion altogether - let's have it run its course. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only clear Keep comments are self labeled as weak and the weight of WP:PAG argument supports deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Owen Webb

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

Appears to be a non-notable academic with one book to his name and a non-notable award from the 'Dialogue Institute of the Southwest'. Sources comprise the University student newspaper, a faculty colleague and, erm, himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Sionk (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, he's chair of a department (according to his university page) so meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and procedurally blocking a speedy-keep withdrawal) Simply being a chair of a university department is not an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. I don't see sufficient coverage to meet GNG, and the existing article doesn't demonstrate to me that NPROF is met; I also don't see enough in a Google Scholar search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the book is in 245 libraries, a/c worldcat, which is quite high for a book of this nature. There are very likely to be reviews, and they need to be searched for. And he wrote an article on his speciality for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does to some extent indicate he is regarded as an authority. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The award is not notable. The book has not been reviewed in MSM. The encyclopedia entry is a qualification of sorts, but not one of especial eminence. He is chair of a philosophy department, but then again I have a strong suspicion that Texas Tech is not in the premier category of philosophy departments. If a Texas-only version of Wikipedia should emerge, he would be a contender, I'm sure.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He is chair of one of the top MA programs in philosophy and I think the award is also important in showing notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Texas Tech is not listed in the top 50 graduate philosophy departments.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes the departments with PhD program. The list I mentioned only includes departments without PhD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was close to calling this a no-consensus but here's hoping for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One unreviewed book (at least, I didn't find any reviews in GS nor JSTOR) isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR nor WP:PROF and inherited notability by virtue of being associated with a program that only looks good when one artificially eliminates all doctorate-granting programs isn't worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dushman (2017 film)

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

I can't see that this movie meets WP:NFILM. There are several notable films by this title, but my search for sources did not yield anything about the 2017 film except for the meagre sourcing already in the article. There are only two reviews that I can find, neither of them by a major film critic as required by NFILM. There has also been promotional editing by obvious but undisclosed COI editors. bonadea contributions talk 10:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM--DBig Xray 20:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rua Farme de Amoedo

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

Not quite sure if the street meets notability for WP:GEOROAD. I'm finding little to no third party sources written about the street itself beyond the two references listed on the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is about what is asserted to be the "gay street" of Rio de Janeiro. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frei Caneca Street, about what was asserted to be the corresponding street in Sao Paulo. Both AFDs assert few sources found beyond what's listed in the articles, without criticising those sources, so it seems like an incomplete argument for deletion. It was pointed out in the other AFD that these are equivalent to Christopher Street and Polk Street in New York. I tend to believe the assertions in the articles, and the assertions in the other article have been further supported when User:Oakshade got around to researching it. Given the deletion nominator turns out to have failed to find available sources there, i figure similar sources are likely to be available here too. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well the source in the article seem to say the street won some kind of award. I certainly never heard of The Voice, but it seem to be one of those internet news websites. The other reference is to http://www.ipanema.com/, which look as some kind of travel page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Frei Caneca Street, the foreign language Wikipedia articles for this entry also lacks references. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "The Voice" source is not some random new website, it is The Village Voice, of New York City, which is awardwinning as a newspaper and, according to its Wikipedia article dates from 1955 and was the first "alternative newsweekly." I didn't know of its author, but that is Michael Musto, a journalist. That said, the Village Voice article doesn't even name Rue Farme de Amoedo, it just includes flat designation of "Best Gay Beach International" to be Rio de Janeiro. The beachside avenue along Ipanema beach there is Avenida Vieira Souto; Rua Farme de Amoedo is perpendicular, presumably at the gay section of the beach, yeah that is what the ipanema.com source says, covering what it calls "Farme Gay Beach". Includes mention "After the beach, many gays and lesbians stop for a beer or snack at Bar Bofetada, on Rua Farme de Amoedo." Search on "Farme Gay Beach" yields more sources such as this guide.

So try also (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I don't know what is the Portuguese language name for the beach section which might yield better results.

Anyhow it seems the beach section and the street are a significant gay tourist destination imho. The article can be broadened to cover the beach section too. --Doncram (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar search on Farme Gay Beach yields " No place on Earth does Carnival like Rio!": a feminist critique of racial democracy through the analysis of transnational tourism, a Towson University thesis ~~which I can't read but~~ sounds relevant and would appear to be a reliable source. --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC) The thesis does mention the beach as a significant gay landmark in Rio but doesn't provide much more. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rua Farme de Amoedo is the source of the "Farme" in "Farme Gay Beach", which may be the more widely known term. Google Maps shows a big beach volleyball area there. Or the beach is just known as "Farme" as here being ranked #1 worldwide among gay beaches or perhaps I guess as "Farme Beach".

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

The article could be expanded and perhaps moved to that name, or that name could redirect to the article. --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. in the Washington Post: "But some Brazilians say that too much foreign attention can become a drag. In nothing but Ray-Bans and his Calvin Klein sunga, Raul Vinicius, 25, was surveying the scene on Ipanema near Farme do Amoedo street, considered a gay-friendly part of the beach, with rainbow flags rippling in the wind. In his home town of Florianopolis, in southern Brazil, he said, it was normal to flirt at the beach. But in Rio, he’d noticed male prostitutes trolling for foreigners and the tourists also aggressively hitting on locals." in "Tourists really don’t know how to fit in at Rio’s famous beaches". --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"R. Farme de Amoedo - Ipanema" is a subway stop. To get to the beach from downtown Rio de Janeiro, one would take the subway to it and walk down that avenue to the beach. We have a zillion articles about train stations; I am not sure that we need articles on every subway station but having a combo article about station / notable street / notable beach seems reasonable to me. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the street has been significantly covered in media. SportingFlyer talk 07:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Neiditch

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

Real estate developer only notable for getting his name in the papers regarding his celebrity clients. The article itself is, as the PROD tag put it, " Pure spam.See WP:ADVERTISEMENT." Calton | Talk 03:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom. The press coverage of him is not in-depth.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Roa (musician)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Most biographical coverage in reliable sources is trivial, though there is some (see [38][39][40]). A consensus of editors also found the MYX charts unreliable (see WP:BADCHARTS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MYX Hit Chart). Magnolia677 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source is even close to being something adding towards passing GNG, so it clearly fails that. I am still trying to figure out how John Roa is a mononym.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources including those identified by the nominator so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Hartman

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

No reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletefails GNG. Dial911 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The KVJ Show

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

Inadequately sourced article about a single-market local radio show. As always, local radio shows do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because they exist -- a radio show requires evidence of wider notability, such as airing on a national network or in syndication. But the only references here are a couple of news items in its own local media market and its own self-published content about itself, which is not enough to get a purely local radio show over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local morning zoo who had a short and failed run in Miami. Pretty much seems to be an article designed to shove the show's website onto Wikipedia...which we don't do. Nate • (chatter) 06:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kilowatt Divide

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

WP:DICDEF of a neologism, "referenced" only to the neologizer's self-published résumé on LinkedIn rather than to any reliable source evidence that it's a thing anybody else talks about. As always, every new term that somebody invents is not automatically an appropriate article topic -- it has to documentably pass into general usage as a concept that actually gets analyzed and discussed and reported on by sources other than the term's own creator, but there's no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:NEOLOGISM. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A neologism that just doesn't seem to have caught on, with consequently no reliable sources to help it. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Singh Nalwa (scientist)

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

This article went through speedy deletion and AfD years ago (See: [41]), with a result of 'no consensus'. This should be an uncontroversial deletion, in my opinion.

The page was originally created in user space in 2011 by a user named "Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist)", possibly as an attempt to trick readers into thinking that Wikipedia had a real entry for this individual, when in fact it was only a user page. After this, IP user 66.133.228.211 and user Ukvariar (who have only ever edited on topics related to Hari Singh Nalwa), began editing the User:Hari_Singh_Nalwa_(Scientist) user page extensively. Another user noticed this and moved the page from user space to draft space. Ukvariar then promoted the article into an actual page.

As is indicated in the article, it has been tagged with substantial issues for many years with no improvement. It is completely without references, except to American Scientific Publishing (www.aspbs.com), which is a predatory publisher that was started by Hari Singh Nalwa.[42] This individual does have 91 Scopus-indexed papers and an h-index of 27 (h=52 on Google Scholar, but this notoriously includes many low-quality sources); however, many were published by his own predatory publisher, which has been flagged for curious citation patterns: [43]. This is an obvious vanity autobiography originally created in user space apparently to deceive readers, and it should be deleted. Even if he is deserving of an article, this one was written as an autobiography, is total junk filled with numerous unreferenced claims, and it needs to be nuked from space and started over. WP:NUKEIT Bueller 007 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scientist is non notable,I could not find any reliable reference about him Heshiv (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apart from Eastmain, the "keep"s are by blocked users or users with less than 30 edits. Sandstein 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fynd

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

As usual with companies of this sort, every reference here is a press release or a mere notice. There are more of them than usual, but no evidence of encyclopedic notability DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This bylined article from Economic Times is reasonably in-depth and from a reliable source. The article was published in 2014 and uses the company's previous name, Shopsense. This Business Standard article is behind a paywall but appears to be independent and in-depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and met WP:GNG, obviously an article can't meet all WP policies. Every company and article is notable somehow in their respective industry unless an ordinary electric store on the road side. Mia Watson (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's a rather unsuaul opinion, considering that we have a basic principle, WP:NOTDIIRECTORY. How would this make us diffeent from google? DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough references which falls under Wikipedia:List_of_online_newspaper_archives#India. It was however in minor violation

with WP:NPOV policy which has been corrected. Sachdevpuneet (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article notable but WP:NOTDIRECTORY Applies. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice: sourcing does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. Yet another nn startup using Wikipedia for advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some substantial features here: e.g. the Times of India article which although no doubt based on a press release does nevertheless provide information about the capitalization and business model of the company in what is evidently an independent, reliable, secondary source.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Third round startups of this size are rarely notable. Most of the sources in the article are PR driven. BEFORE shows around 42 true google-news hits (after filtering adding a founder's name, since Fynd is not a unique name) - which also seems to be mostly promotional driven (funding round news releases by the VCs and the company, company PR releases).Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sorry, NCORP hasn't been met. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Spano

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

Non-notable person. I don't believe the Slovenian sources are enough to establish notability. Likely native advertising, given the contribution history of the creator. MER-C 19:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable software developer / entrepreneur - released two applications (and at present - this article is really about them). The person doesn't seem to have SIGCOV (and what there is, is in Slovenian - despite these tools catering to a global audience (I think!)) - and the applications do not pass NSOFT/GNG on my search.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Darbos

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

Rugby player played under US Dax in junior division. Fails to meet WP:NRU. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page creator Advim has declared they're the subject's grandson manager [44][45] and has repeatedly asked for Paul's article review.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Claude Darbos may be notable, but I worry about the potential conflict of interest involved. Although I can move the article to draft, this discussion was already opened and it may be better to know other editors thoughts. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was wavering on this but decided to go with keep. played in two Top 14 finals, or rather precursors. Can be hard to establish the status of players from the amateur era but if he played today he would 100% qualify for an article.

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 04:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in SUPERKOMBAT

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Superkombat Fighting Championship

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

Persistently re-created, this (and related) articles have been deleted at least seven times that I'm aware of (most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superkombat Fighting Championship), generally because of lack of coverage in reliable sources, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:EVENT.
Bundling the following:

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-notable event (there isn't even an article for SUPERKOMBAT itself). Consider salting if persistent recreation. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Under some circumstances I might pull the delete trigger with one !vote, but not on a multi-nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Notability is not transferable here, and we did just delete the Superkombat page (which required a great deal of wrangling, as I recall). Given the lack of a Superkombat page, these pages really don't have much of a leg to stand on, in terms of notability. Anyway, salt, if needed, due to persistent recreation. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 04:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Fagbule

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted by AfD but it was three years ago so there might have been some notability gained in the meantime. There hasn't, from what I can see. Google search for "Nike Fagbule" comes up with 93 unique results, none of them particularly significant. Being nominated for some awards does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 19:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three years after not much has changed, although I see some public relations publications from her in some rs. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 04:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Wei (sound artist)

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

No indication of notability. I've search both English and Chinese sources and could not find much third-party coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. Zanhe (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources that show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 07:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skrömta

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 04:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Youth

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lonely AfD as it has been re-listed twice without any input. Maybe it's because it's such an obvious delete that it's barely worth the effort; no sources and the only external link is to the band's defunct webpage. My Google turns up a few hits on small time punk music blogs and websites, and while theses indicate they had a small (less than 1000) number of enthusiastic followers, it's coverage that indicates existence rather than significance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SolTrans. Sandstein 07:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtola Park & Ride

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

Non-notable local parking lot. Fails NOTGUIDE. Minimal coverage in local paper, does not meet GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 01:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could this be merged/redirected to a list-article? What about the collection of this and similar bus stations within Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is navigation template Template:SFBAtransit which includes this item and a bunch of others. --Doncram (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SolTrans. I don't think it fails NOTGUIDE but it doesn't meet GNG unless additional coverage can be found. Peter James (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge with SolTrans. WP:NOTGUIDE WP:FANCRUFT Acnetj (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 00:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Barrett

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

Notable only for her participation in the reality show. Fails as per WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hzh's rationale of WP:MUSICBIO #9, but I'd argue that she (mostly) meets #1 as well. There's a significant amount of coverage from reliable sources from her (a lot of it is related to her Idol performance but it's still her as the subject): [53], [54], [55], [56]. This is just a quick search and some of these are kind of iffy, but I think if you dig a little bit you'll find that she meets both criteria. An easy keep !vote here. Nomader (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets criteria 9 of MUSICBIO by winning third place on American Idol. Tillerh11 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough as third place on American Idol, but that's about where specific articles should end based solely on show participation. We have an article for #1 and #2, so it's odd not to have one for #3. Ultimograph5 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets MUSICBIO and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Herridge

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

not notable,and the article is indistinguishable from a promotional web page. The sources are only her web site on Fox and on a speakers bureau, her own writings on Fox, and a Fox story about a non-notable event in her life. This has actually been here since 2005. We need to look carefully at all bio accepted in the first few years of WP. DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly anything promotional on this page. How about https://heightline.com/catherine-herridge-son-biography/ for an additional source? 106.208.49.250 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have to disagree on this one; certainly not our best cable journalist page by any means, but the subject was part of the FNC launch team and is still with the network to this day with some pretty high reporting titles during that time; that clinches WP:N for me. Nate • (chatter) 06:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per Mrschimpf, Emily Khine (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 04:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyuupiru

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

Fails WP:GNG. This might pass WP:NARTIST, but no independent sources could be found that would make this pass the GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have added an "exhibitions" section to the article with references for the following: the Uppsala Gallery (Japanese Contemporary Art 14 March to 19 April 2015), Yokohama Museum of Art (GOTH: Reality of the Departed World 22 December 2007 to 26 March 2008), Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen (Fashion as Point of Departure / H+F Fashion on the Edge 16 October 2010 to 30 January 2011 and The Future of Fashion is Now 18 October 2014 to 18 January 2015), Kuandu Museum of Fine Arts (I have a Dream－10 Solos by 10 Asia Artists: 2008 Kuandu Biennale), and the Museum of Contemporary Art Taipei (Fashion Accidentally 26 May to 22 July 2007). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the referenced exhibitions section added as detailed above which confirm exhibitions in major museums and the artist also has works in permanent collections of museums so passes WP:NARTIST as now verified, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NARTIST as is, also subject of 2011 documentary film discussed in multiple Japanese media outlets, so could be expanded. Bakazaka (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:NARTIST. Thazinkoko (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator appears to propose that a subject needs to meet the GNG as well as an applicable subject-specific notability guideline. In this case, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. That is not necessary. As WP:N clarifies: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (emphasis mine). As has been pointed out above, the applicable SNG has been met. Vexations (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK#6 and will be patently in the news for weeks, if not months. Step hen 01:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Luang cave rescue

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

WP:NOTNEWS not every dramatic event needs coverage on here Prisencolin (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep Is this a joke nom? We have always had articles about major news stories such as plane crashes, terrorist acts and the like. We created the article about the Chile miners' story as it happened. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Snow keep, this AFD is purely disruptive (I declined a PROD immediately prior). Way to ignore WP:BEFORE, Prisencolin. This event has attracted international in-depth attention and is ongoing. Per the General Notability Guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". WP:NOTNEWS is more appropriate for trivial news-items like Movie star makes appearance at local restaurant, or things that are more appropriately mentioned in existing articles. There is a conceivable argument that this event could be merged with an article about the cave, but given that the cave Tham Luang Nang Non is currently a redirect to the mountain range Doi Nang Non, and the extensive coverage this is sure to generate over the foreseeable future, such a merger is unwarranted given the lopsided nature of coverage. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Can't think of any way this is not a disruptive nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6. Currently linked from the Main Page. Suggest procedural close before any more time is wasted. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

MCF general

MillionHeir

Malgrave Incident

Dire Grove, Sacred Grove

Fate's Carnival

Shadow Lake

Escape from Ravenhearst

13th Skull

Dire Grove

Return to Ravenhearst

Madame Fate

Ravenhearst

Prime Suspects

Huntsville

Key to Ravenhearst

Games without articles