Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 June	28 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Lövgren

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

Autobiography about a footballer, deprodded by someone else with the claim that he played in Allsvenskan. But the club in question, Sirius, debuted there in 2017 whereas the player left Sirius in 2014. Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (confirmed by Soccerway). Giant Snowman 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and GiantSnowman. 21.colinthompson (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in Sundsvalls Tidning, Drammens Tidende & Fædrelandsvennen Joaomufc (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and is not sourced to meet WP:GNG. Apparently an autobiography too judging from the image and GUC. Sam Sailor 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFOOTY and autobios are discouraged Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current sourcing does not seem to be reliable. No newspaper or news search yielded any result about him. Dial911 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Collins & Tsai

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

This has been paid promotion (and thus illegal native advertising/deceptive advertising) from the start; but Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. The firm routinely practices law as do other law firms, and gets a certain amount of passing coverage when the cases it is associated with are in the news, but this is not enough to satisfy the requirements of our excellent new and more stringent notability guidelines for companies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 23:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 23:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A run-of-the-mill directory listing for a run-of-the-mill law firm. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple references primarily about the firm: [1] [2] [3] These references demonstrate that Reid Collins & Tsai is not a run-of-the-mill law firm. Anything that is deceptive can be fixed through the editing process, although the article seems relatively neutral to me. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These references demonstrate that Reid Collins & Tsai is not a run-of-the-mill law firm. Uh huh. Two duplicate links from a trade journal article about a case involving the firm and another one announcing that they pay nice bonuses to their associates. Those two references demonstrate nothing of that kind. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Well sourced article which demonstrates notability. 13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep. The firm has litigated court cases that have been sufficiently notable to receive coverage in Reuters, WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg Briefs, and various industry media. These reports have focused on the legal cases rather than the law firms fighting them, naturally enough, but representing clients in court cases is what legal firms do, so participation in notable cases is relevant to the notability of the firm itself, it seems to me. An article about Big Macs is significant coverage for McDonalds. So for me it seems clear that coverage of court cases litigated by the firm qualify as significant for the firm itself. Reuters, WSJ, and so on are clearly independent and reliable secondary sources, so taken together I think there is direct evidence for notability from the sources already on the page. Not directly relevant to the English language wikipedia, but there is also a *lot* of coverage of the Shakira -- de la Rua lawsuit in Spanish language media. I'm not sure why this is not mentioned at all on the English language website because coverage of it in Billboard, CBS news, and elsewhere is mentioned on the firm's Wikipedia.es page.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought over a brief summary of the Shakira-de la Rua case from wikipedia.es with references from Billboard, CBS News, and Associated Press.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that two out of three of those sources do not mention the firm at all, T0mpr1c3, and the third only in passing ("... William Reid of Reid, Collins & Tsai ..."). A business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. What is required for notability of corporations is clearly laid out at WP:NCORP, and this kind of passing mention does exactly nothing to satisfy that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that. All three articles discuss the suit at length, explicitly name William T. Reid IV as the counsel for one of the parties in the suit, and include direct quotations from him in relation to the lawsuit.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this article has flaws, the guidelines for deletion are strict and this article surely meets qualifications for a Keep vote. It meets WP:GNG by its most strictest terms, with multiple sources containing references to the subject of the article.

Wikipedia:DEL states that articles that have grounds for deletion:

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

In this case, at least 5 of the many articles referenced explicitly mention the subject and verify the major claims that the article makes, such as he Shakira lawsuit. Proponents of a Delete vote primarily argue that it isn't notable enough. One even mentions notability guidelines for companies as being against this article, however, it points out that:

"No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization."

These "stringent" new guidelines undoubtedly acknowledge that this page is flawed, yet the fact that the subject has been mentioned multiple times by outside sources and has been subject to controversy and coverage outside of press releases and other self-published publications. Secondly, the a claim made by Calton appears to be entirely subjective. There is no inherent policy against what one person considers "run-of-the-mill", especially when the article meets keep guidelines. The argument Calton references only a few questionable references, however, further review on his/her part should reveal sufficient referencing to deter deletion. Unless anyone has explicit copy-pastes of a guideline from Wikipedia's extensive archive that overrules the major ones I've brushed over as well as an explanation of why this article fails it/them, this page shouldn't be deleted.

I understand the argument that as a law firm, it may be attempting to advertise itself. The way to combat this isn't by outright deleting an article with a valid claim to notability, it's by reviewing the rhetoric used and changing it to be more impartial. The true beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and with collective effort, this page can look less promotional and more informative.

In finality, as an observer of these democratic proceedings, I have no independent power over whether this page gets deleted or kept, however, I advise reviewers to allow this page to be kept because it meets guidelines for remaining active, and avoids the ones calling for deletion. In advance, I apologized if I'm a bit impassioned, so if anyone has any questions about my position, please let me know! WikiSniki 17:00, 3 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) 00:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Tandon (politician)

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

President of a city based committee. Fails on WP:NPOL. Passing mentions here and there in local news, not enough to demonstrate notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 20:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Local leader clearly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.. never an elected representative.. zero dedicated coverage in mainstream media --Adamstraw99 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a political party's local organizing committee in a single city is not in and of itself an WP:NPOL pass, but this article is not well-sourced enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one liner (micro)stub with not enough convincing sourcing. Dial911 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Joe Tomasso

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

Non notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets most of WP:GNG, Tomasso was a notable wrestler in Canadian pro wrestling in the mid 1900's. He was a mainstay of Stampede, arguably the biggest and most notable Canadian pro wrestling promotion in history. --HC7 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to HC7's comments...He is in Stampede Wrestling's HoF [4] and SLAM Wrestling's HoF [5]. This SLAM article [6]. A couple of paragraphs in Straight from the Heart (ECW Press) and multiple mentions in Pain and Passion: The History of Stampede Wrestling (ECW Press). Nikki♥311 21:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject features in Pain and Passion: The History of Stampede Wrestling. Otrantos (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources and in a valid hall of fame, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about other online sources but number 10 says he has been written about in a book published by ECW Press. ECW Press is a highly reliable publishing source for books in Canada. Dial911 (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even those supporting "keep" were concerned about major issues in the article. If anyone wants this userfied for improvement and subsequent restoration to mainspace, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LifeGem

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

There have been questions around if this company meets WP:COMPANY as per its talk page but appears no one has nominated it. User Pformenti wanted to nominate for deletion but didn't know how to so am doing it on their behalf. Questions have been raised about the company and their process and if it is even possible, as per this report. http://cremationdiamondreport.com/lifegem2007.html NZFC^(talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are WP:RS such as this and this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article tone and structure are fairly blatantly self-referential and the article itself is, IMHO, promotionalism in action. Quis separabit? 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is fairly promotional at present, there is hope, and TonyTheTiger shows there are some sources to show notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The links you provided TonytheTiger are written by contributors not journalists. Wikipedia does not allow articles written by contributors to be count as valid sources to be cited from. See here, he is a contributor. Other Huffpo article has no author of mention [7] Furthermore there are no scientific journals or journalists for that matter who have written about what the company claims on their process. Both (HuffPo) AND (FoodandWine) do not constitute as valid sources. Even Forbes is looked down upon on Wikipedia. In addition, there is a clear discrepancy between the actual patent (states it uses sublimation) versus what's written on the Wiki page. Other information such as TOTAL REVENUE is also not founded off any sources. This is a classic instance of promotionalism. Pformenti (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an article, it's an advertisement, and the sources a reek of PR. The two "reliable sources" TonyTheTiger cites above are nothing of the sort: one is HuffPo puff piece that doesn't even have a byline and the other is really only minor quirky story about the brewpub. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hate the product, the article is 10 years out of date and full of dead links, and the whole article stinks of advertising. But the company is referenced by articles from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. IMO it needs to be updated and rewritten, not deleted.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's borderline G11, but the company is most likely notable. Deleting with a consensus against notability would prejudice recreation, so I have to vote keep — AfD is not cleanup, but it does need substantial rewriting from top to bottom. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOPROMO which is policy and trumps notability considerations. We do not allow Wikipedia to be used for advertising/promotion, period. The issue of notability is purely secondary. The article cannot be kept in it's present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ISNOT deletion per Ad Orientem. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:09, 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 keep. This is a NOTAVOTE close. IMO the weight of argument lies with the Keep and analysis of sources provided near the bottom of the discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mackinac Financial Corporation

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

Non-notable company. This article was deleted previously (see [8]), and then restored to be userfied because it was created as a course assignment and the user needed evidence of the article for course credit (see [to userfy the page|Request to userfy the page]). However, the article was then moved back to article space with no improvement. I would argue that this qualifies as a WP:CSD#G4 deletion, but I'll allow the discussion first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 80 year old bank with 29 branches and assets of $1.3B. [[9]] Should probably be renamed to mBank (US Bank), the better known entity that Mackinac is a holding company for. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are 80 years, 29 branches and $1.3B assets listed as criteria for notability somewhere? Where's the significant coverage? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a bank with $1b in holdings should meet the notability threshold, but it's not set in stone. Here's some coverage, mostly about their acquisitions, but they are pretty big now: [[10]], [[11]], [[12]] and [[13]], although now I'm thinking Mackinac is the correct title. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing and routine notices. $1.3B in assets is rather insignificant. Just a nn financial institution going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd like to think that the largest bank headquartered in the UP counts for something, but actually it doesn't. Just lacks non-routine, independent sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
According to https://www.bankmbank.com/About-mBank/History.aspx, mBank was originally chartered in 1934 under the name of First National Bank in Manistique. By 1998, it was renamed to North Country Bank and Trust. In 2005, it was renamed to mBank. Mackinac Financial Corporation is mBank's holding company.
Here are some sources about the subject:
1. Schmidt, Heike (2001-03-09). "Der Amerikaner des Westens hat andere Instinkte. Zinsen? Will er nicht, lieber eine neue Knarre. Die Banker reiben sich die Hände". Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Manistique - Wer bei der "North Country Bank and Trust" im US-Staat Michigan ein Festgeldkonto eröffnet, erhält eine Schrotflinte als Prämie. Bei Abschluss eines mehrjährigen Vertrages erhalten Anleger ein Gewehr der Nobelmarke Weatherby. Im Gegenzug verzichten sie auf eine spätere Zinsausschüttung.
  Seit 1990 ködert die kleine Regionalbank potenzielle Kunden mit großen Kalibern statt mit hohen Zinsen. Rund tausend Kunden aus 50 Bundesstaaten hätten sich für die Sofort-Dividende entschieden, sagt Anlageberaterin Rosemary Garvin. Damit habe das landesweit in Jagdzeitschriften inserierte Programm der Bank bisher "Millionen von Dollar" eingebracht.
  Weatherby fertigt für die "North Country Bank" mittlerweile sogar exklusiv eine limitierte Sonderversion des Gewehrs "Lazermark" (mit feinster Eichenlaubgravur) an. Für die Tierschützer unter den Sparern wurden vorsorglich Standuhren, Golfschläger und Ferngläser in den Prämienkatalog aufgenommen.
2. Flesher, John (2001-03-19). "In Hunting Country, Bank Offers Guns in Lieu of Interest". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  A copy of the article at https://www.newspapers.com/image/133299924/ (clipping at https://www.newspapers.com/clip/21471428/) indicates the writer of this Associated Press article is John Flesher. The article notes:
  The .12-gauge shotgun and the .270-caliber rifle on the wall rack at North Country Bank and Trust's downtown branch are not just teller-window dressing. Plunk down a couple of thousand dollars for a 20-year certificate of deposit and either one could be yours.
  North Country offers CD buyers a choice: interest payments that accrue in the usual way, or pricey merchandise such as grandfather clocks, golf clubs and, especially, guns. North Country's "instant interest" catalog lists more than 100 rifle and 18 shotgun models made by Weatherby Inc. of Atascadero, Calif.
  The decade-old program has attracted depositors from all 50 states, bank president Ronald Ford says. Not bad for a bank whose 31 branches are all in northern Michigan.
  ...
  North Country advertises its program in hunting and gun collector magazines. It has handed out more than 7,000 firearms and taken in millions of dollars in deposits while receiving up to 40,000 inquiries a year, Ford says.
3. Henderson, Tom (2012-04-18). "A bank company in little Manistique attracts a big player in the hedge fund scene". Crain Communications. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Mackinac Financial Corp., a bank holding company based in Manistique in the Upper Peninsula, hopes to use an investment from a legendary hedge fund manager to jumpstart its expansion plans for Southeast Michigan.
  Mackinac (Nasdaq: MFNC), the holding company for mBank, has seven branches in the U.P., three in the northern Lower Peninsula and just one in metro Detroit — in Birmingham, where the company's chairman and CEO, Paul Tobias, has his office.
  ...
  Mackinac Financial recently announced it has begun a $7 million rights offering of common stock for its current shareholders. In conjunction with that offering, the company in March entered into a securities purchase agreement with Steinhardt Capital Investors LLLP, a private equity firm based in New York.
  ...
  Mackinac has more than $495 million in assets. According to its annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company had net income of $1.5 million in 2011.
4. Comings, Peter (2003-05-05). "FDIC orders North Country Financial Corp. to 'cease and desist' questionable loan making". Petoskey News-Review. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The article notes:
  
  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) and the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) have issued a cease-and-desist order to North Country Financial Corp., the holding company for Manistique-based North Country Bank and Trust which has 26 branch offices around the state, including one in Gaylord.
  ...
  The Associated Press reported Monday, among other problems, North Country has issued $17.5 million in loans to "current and former directors, officers, and employees of the bank and their relatives." Dividend payments to shareholders were suspended last year.
5. LeDuc, M. Vonciel (2009). Manistique. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 98. ISBN 0738560383. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The book notes:
  
  The First National Bank of Manistique opened in 1900 on the corner of South Cedar and Walnut Streets. The bank was reorganized in 1930 and became the First National Bank in Manistique and received its charter in 1934. The upstairs was rented out as offices for professionals. (Adolf Sandberg Collection.)
6. Coverage about Michael Moore's visit to North Country Bank and Trust in the film Bowling for Columbine:
  1. Bernstein, Matthew (2010). Michael Moore: Filmmaker, Newsmaker, Cultural Icon. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 0472071033. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
    The book notes:
    
    Masculine pride in gun ownership is everywhere in the film, from the boys with toy rifles to homegrown radicals like Nichols to the mild-mannered bank clerk who tells Moore about his owning the same "straight shooter" of a rifle that Moore receives as a reward for opening a bank account at the North Country Bank and Trust. The pride of possessing something that so overtly speaks masculinity extends to Moore himself. In Bowling for Columbine, on exiting the bank, he triumphantly holds his just-acquired rifle over his head in a gesture that echoes Charles Heston's famous speech at the 2000 annual meeting of the NRA when, upon receiving an antique rifle as a gift, he declared that the gun control lobby would succeed in getting his weapon only if they pried it out of his "cold dead hands."
  2. Corliss, Richard (2002-09-29). "Blood Bath and Beyond". Time. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
    The article notes:
    
    Michigan's North Country Bank was offering a free gun with a new checking account — more bang for the buck, read the ad — so naturally Michael Moore had to apply. And he had to ask the friendly officer who helped him with the application: "You think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?"
  3. Lyons, Daniel (2002-12-09). "Bowl-o-Drama". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-06. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
    The article notes:
    
    BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
    ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.
7. Wood, Christopher (2003-09-04). "Executive Changes". American Banker. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The article notes:
  
  North Country Financial Corp. of Manistique, Mich., has hired a former state bank regulator to help rehabilitate its $522 million-asset North Country Bank and Trust.
  ...
  North Country Bank has run into asset quality problems recently. Federal and state regulators, citing shoddy lending practices and poor management, issued a cease-and-desist order against it in March.
8. "A Look Back at the... Pioneer-Tribune Archives". Pioneer Tribune. 2015-06-25. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The article notes:
  
  10 Years Ago June 30, 2005
  Tuesday marked a transition from one era to the next, as workers removed the old North Country Bank and Trust sign from the Cedar Street branch and replaced it with a sign bearing the company’s new name, mBank. The change was the latest for an institution that began in 1934 as the First National Bank at Manistique. The North Country title was unveiled in August 1996, when the name was changed from First Northern Bank and Trust. The company officially became mBank last month.
9. "Named Bank Receiver". The Ironwood Times. 1934-11-30. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
  The article notes:
  
  MANISTIQUE, Nov. 23—Gottfried S. Johnson, Manistique attorney, received notification by wire from J. F. T. O'Connor, comptroller of currency at Washington that he had been appointed as receiver of the First National Bank in Manistique. As the commission of Mauritz Carlson as conservator of the old bank expired on the same date, Attorney Johnson will take over the trust immediately. The receivership is of the remaining 40 per cent of the assets of the old First National Bank in Manistique which are in the process of liquidation. On October 13 of this year 60 per cent of the assets of the old bank were released to depositors in the reorganization and the establishment of the new bank or the First National Bank at Manistique.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mackinac Financial Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The criteria for companies/organizations is described at WP:NCORP where it clarifies that "independent" should be taken to mean "intellectually independent" and provides examples of the types of references which do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the references you've provided above fail WP:CORPDEPTH as they're talking about the novelty of a bank providing a firearm to its customers and nothing about the bank itself. Or the inclusion of a photo in a book is a mere mention-in-passing. Etc. None of your references meet the criteria. Please read WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that discuss the gun program provide ongoing significant coverage of the bank's product. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of substantial coverage:

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,

[other examples]

The sources here provide "ongoing media coverage focusing" on the company's gun program. There are articles in the newspaper Der Spiegel and the news agency Associated Press in 2001 and coverage by Michael Moore in the documentary film Bowling for Columbine in 2002. They discuss the bank's advertising strategy and provide in-depth coverage of how the program works and the participation in it.

Analyst reports also can be used to establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

This article^WebCite from The Fly notes:

Mackinac Financial initiated with an Overweight at Piper Jaffray Piper Jaffray analyst Nathan Race started Mackinac Financial with an Overweight rating and $20 price target. The analyst highlights the company's "scarcity value" in the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan as well as Northern Wisconsin and its "stronger" net interest margin profile.

This is an analyst report from senior research analyst Nathan Race of the investment bank Piper Jaffray. The full report can be accessed by Piper Jaffray clients at https://www.piperjaffray.com/2col.aspx?id=273. From this article^WebCite in American Banking News:

Research analysts at Piper Jaffray Companies issued their Q2 2018 earnings per share (EPS) estimates for Mackinac Financial in a report issued on Wednesday, June 20th. Piper Jaffray Companies analyst N. Race forecasts that the financial services provider will post earnings of $0.29 per share for the quarter. Piper Jaffray Companies has a “Overweight” rating and a $20.00 price objective on the stock. Piper Jaffray Companies also issued estimates for Mackinac Financial’s Q3 2018 earnings at $0.31 EPS, Q4 2018 earnings at $0.32 EPS, FY2018 earnings at $1.20 EPS, Q1 2019 earnings at $0.31 EPS, Q2 2019 earnings at $0.33 EPS, Q3 2019 earnings at $0.35 EPS, Q4 2019 earnings at $0.36 EPS and FY2019 earnings at $1.35 EPS.
...
Other research analysts have also recently issued research reports about the company. Hovde Group began coverage on Mackinac Financial in a research note on Tuesday, April 3rd. They issued an “outperform” rating and a $19.00 price target on the stock. …

The two analyst reports mentioned above are listed at https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/MFNC/price-target/ under a paywall^WebCite:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
6/20/2018	Piper Jaffray Companies	Initiated Coverage	Overweight	$20.00	Low	Paywall link
4/3/2018	Hovde Group	Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$19.00	Low	Paywall link

The two analyst reports are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

Cunard (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Tips Hat Analyst reports, yes, that works. I'll change my !vote. Your point about whether coverage of a product can be used to establish notabilty of an organization is incorrect. The opening lines of NCORP state: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. But, analyst reports - thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the new WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability including the very very long listing by Cunard above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard above has located analyst reports. There meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 3 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. Not the strongest consensus, but in the absence of any comments supporting deletion this is where we are. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Andujar

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

Minor actress. A very short resume, despite the padding, with only a few roles even having names. Calton | Talk 00:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was billed 9th in Marjorie Prime (odd IMBD mentions her first for that flick and the Wiki article mentions her 9th), 15th in a USD 28 mil budget Liam Neeson flick, and 7th for Precious which got USD 60 mil at the box office. Oh, and all of her roles had names. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

odd IMBD mentions her first for that flick - Because, as even a cursory glance would tell you, the IMDB listing for Marjorie Prime is in alphabetical order.
Oh, and all of her roles had names - "Cashier" is a name?[14] And you think 15th billing is noteworthy -- especially since the credits are clearly in order of appearance?
And despite your attempts to inflate the importance of such low billing, I should point out that her name doesn't appear on the posters -- at least in legible font -- for those very very important roles. --Calton | Talk 05:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep borderline WP:NACTOR as Marjorie Prime role seems quite prominent according to the plot section and in Precious (film) her role gets a description Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She meets the bare minimum standards for WP:NACTOR on the basis of having major roles in at least two feature films that are, themselves, notable. That said, this is very marginal. Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Episode_1_Ventures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great British Mobility

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

Company has been closed for a number of years, a new company completely unaffiliated with the original great british mobility group has since opened and this article causes confusion for customers of the new business. Article itself is not particularly notable and it is not in the public interest for the article to exist. Article also states the company was called great british mobility ltd when it was in fact called great british mobility group ltd. This is causing no end of confusion to an elderly customer base for the new great british mobility ltd company Spcoe (talk) 08:47, 13 June 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 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split into two artuicles, one for the old company and one for the new. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is the nominator's first contribution. See Spcoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail the new WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and appear to be mainly associated with company announcements, sponsorship and financial difficulties, all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. While the comments of the nominator are a little suspicious regarding "causing confusion" and has not provided a rationale in line with policy or guidelines, I believe the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split and Keep It meets WP:GNG. Mia Watson (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss splitting on thetalk page. I don;t think it should be kept--we usually keep information of such straightforward succceor companies together in one article. Thitle ise t usually he newest, but could be the best known, as hee. DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vistek

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

Declined PROD. Original reasoning was: "Non-notable local retailer. Search of GNews (and GNews archives) and GBooks turned up no reliable sources. Also checked Globe and Mail archives and the best available were mere mentions in "gifts to get your (whoever) for Christmas and where to find them!" articles."

Some sources were added after the PROD was declined, but I don't believe they're enough to pass WP:NCORP.

1, 2, 3, and 5 are business listings, with 2 not even listing Vistek anymore.

On the surface, 4 looks like a nice big chewy article in The Canadian Business Journal, but if you click the big red button that says "View Brochure", you will find that all of the text comes verbatim from a Vistek brochure, rendering it worthless as a source.

We can't use the company's own archives to support a claim of notability, for obvious reasons, so 6 is out.

7 is actually a great source (access here via HighBeam if you have it), but on its own it isn't enough to support keeping the article.

8 is the company's own website, and 9 is a press release distributed by MarketWire; both are not independent and can't be used to support notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

__________

Thanks for looking through the references. Some of them of course, are just from the company, so those don't count, but I was surprised about Marketwire and the Canadian Journal (of course, now that I read it-- the article is a brochure, I see). Will see if there are more significant sources available. The article, "How Pro Can You Go?" from the PMA Magazine describes the early history of Vistek. And since the article was written 10 years ago, Vistek is now just over 40 years old. It has 5 stores across Canada (it is not a single location) and has been a direct competitor to Henry's (electronics retailer) throughout the years. The one bit of controversy might be when the President of Vistek (Silverstein) bought out the business partner, George Brookman as mentioned in this article (news and notes section). http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/around-town-june-5-dave-sclanders But a further source of information for that has not been found yet. I do not think the article has been written as an Advertisement, but as a proper encyclopedia article. There is news coverage of the trade show that Vistek independently has run for the past 8 years (from 2010 to present), which is ProFusion. Does the significant coverage of the ProFusion Trade show count towards notability? Vistek is the sole organization running the trade show. If so, there is more than can be written and referenced about this trade show, although it may warrant it's own page.

I will add more sources to the page as time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truem (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying the article was written as an advertisement, so it's interesting that you're bringing that up apropos of nothing. What I do think is that the company, based on the coverage, is simply not notable by our standards. Merely existing, even for a long time, does not automatically confer notability. The article in the Calgary Herald barely mentions Vistek except for a small paragraph at the bottom, so it's not a good source for confirming notability.

Notability isn't really inherited, so I would argue that coverage of the trade show indicates its notability, but unless Vistek gets discussed in that coverage somewhere, it doesn't really say much about Vistek's notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think it's a problem with Canadian company's that they do not receive much press other than Canada and therefore, they seem less notable but it doesn't mean they are not notable within the Canadian region. If the criteria is to only allow companies that are notable within US then it's not notable but if we should keep region in consideration than it's notable and should be kept. Mia Watson (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Watson, this isn't about regionalism, or only allowing American companies. It's about being notable by our criteria for notability, which generally requires there to be some independent evidence that the company is notable. I did fairly extensive searches (including, as noted above, the archives of the Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record) and found almost no press coverage of the company, even in Canada. Therefore, by our standards (both in general and for businesses), there is no evidence that the company is notable, so we have no reason to keep the article. The best way for you to prove me wrong would be to find reliable sources that discuss the company in-depth, which would be solid evidence of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tone and content of the article are entirely promotional and fails WP:SPIP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, being run-of-the-mill company profiles or interviews/quotations or business announcements, such references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 2 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 ISO/IEC 29119#ReplacedStandards. Consensus here is weak despite two relists. That said there doesn't seem any support for keeping the article, and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS_7925-1

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

Superceded Andrew D Banks (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that this BS 7925-1 stub-page be deleted, with a redirection to ISO/IEC 29119.

This BS 7925-1 article has very limited content, and this standard has now been superseded by ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1 - so what little is here, is obsolete anyway!

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: I posted this on the Talk Page of the article on 13 October 2017, with no response (for or against!)

Andrew D Banks (talk) 10:21, 12 June 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 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete As with its -2 partner, there extremely few hits anywhere on this. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: If this wasn't at AfD if would be a non-controversial convert page to a redirect to ISO/IEC 29119#ReplacedStandards (I've just created the anchor on the target whilst fixing a cite). Allows those come across this in time to come to easily see whats its about.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* Absolutely happy to make this a redirect instead of deleting Andrew D Banks (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This relist is less than 7 days after the previous one. Together with the fact Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS 7925-2 (albeit that should have been listed on the same review) I am quite concerned this relist was not done with due diligence. I have requested on the sister AfD all further comments are on here for the sake of sanity. The original AfD proposer who appears to be a subject matter expert has been wishing a redirect/merge for some time and perhaps has been a little too cautious about rigorously going about trying to do the right thing in my opinion, but he is willing to do this. The one delete we have is article to be redirected has few hits. Now while I get concerned about deleting an article that is (currently) getting a lot of hits a small number of hits it does not mean an article with a low number of hits is unimportant. Now only a few number of people are likely to come across ISO/IEC 29119 and BS 7925 but the latter will still hang about on documents long after its been forgotten about. Then people may ask wikipedia ... help ... what is BS 7925 ... then the little redirect is useful to people who come across it. I would be grateful if this was closed soonest to let nominator get on with his merge. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relistings are very nearly a full week (less than three hours from being so) apart. With no clear consensus established and very little participation, a relisting is reasonable, in my opinion. Strikerforce^Talk 13:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Comments show a near even divide here (I am discounting the SPA). Nor is an examination of the arguments based on WP:PAG helpful as both sides are looking at the same sources and citing the same guidelines (and essay). IMO a further relisting is unlikely to bear fruit. I am declaring a hung jury and a mistrial. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Garg

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

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

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

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

The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. There's no assertion of notability that passes WP:N Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article almost cleanup removed promotional Content and unnecessary citations.

I found many similar articles on Wikipedia but it's not worst them. Example:Veena Kumaravel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:30A3:CA70:0:0:28D8:E0AD (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:30A3:CA70:0:0:28D8:E0AD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman You are a scholar and moderator on Wikipedia. Why are you not helping us to cleanup this article rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:30A3:CA70:0:0:28D8:E0AD (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GOLDENRULE, have notability on The Hindu. Well known author. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this article and found deletion message. By reading this I have not found any promotion content here and in this article have enough known citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.34.242 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — 146.196.34.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not yet notable per WP:GOLDENRULE, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Significant, independent coverage from WP:RS is need to meet those criteria, not brief mentions in WP:RS about her giving a lecture, nor obvious paid puff pieces like these: [15], [16] aren't the kind of coverage required to show notability. WP:TOOSOON at best. TMG^talk 18:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GOLDENRULE, have notability on The Hindu The Economic Times. Well known author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NAUTHOR; significant RS coverage not found. SPA activity at this AfD is concerning as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Absolutely meets GNG. If it would have been a draft, I would have accepted it at AfC. Dial911 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not the strongest consensus but after two weeks and with no dissenting comments, this is where we are. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bedeni Moluar Kotha

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

No reliable sources found — F R ⁺ 08:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 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) 20:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proper news or media Joaomufc (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Aubert

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

No evidence of notability presented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 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) 20:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources don't even begin to show notability. His best claim to fame seems to be thta for a short while he played a fairly minor role in a radio soap, for which he seems to have received virtually no coverage. The king of the sun (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination; sources in the article do not support notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. References doesn't support the notability of subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 00:54, 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. The article was speedied by Athaenara, which is not really what the policy is about, but nobody has supported keeping the article here, so the end result is the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Notes

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

Lacking indication of notability. Run-of-the mill, trivial coverage listing the app with other products, or coverage based on PR. No indication of depth of coverage, therefore failing WP:NCORP. Note, this has failed AfC and has been CSD as Bear (Productivity App). Author has disclosed paid editing on behalf of the company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included articles from top sources in the tech industry and included reviews both positive and negative of the app so as not to be biased.

Apple, New York Times and Techradar are credible , reliable sources that discuss the app in detail.

It failed speedy deletion because it was the very first attempt I made at writing an article. The information written here is reliable, trustworthy and notable while written in a neutral tone. Any suggestions to help improve the article are welcomed, thanks.(Damienkelly26 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment : The article reads like a fawning ad but the New York Times dedicated a whole article on it. (The stuff from Apple is to be discarded.) -The Gnome (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome, Yeah, I saw that NYT article, but then I realised that, while it starts with Bear, it continues by giving a broader overview of the note taking app market, ie. Jotter Pad, Penuzen, Grid Diary, Narrate and Moodnotes. So IMO this is more of a market overview which I'd consider run-of-the-mill reporting rather than a dedicated article._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:57, 25 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) 20:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's naked advertising. WP:NOPROMO is policy and trumps notability. Absent a total rewrite this can't be kept. Seriously, this is CSD G11 material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Jake Brockman that the NY Times article, while devoting a significant amount of space to Bear Notes, is more of a survey of the app space than anything else. It's not a bad source, but not enough by itself to meet WP:NCORP. The Forbes article is a contributor piece ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own"); while Forbes is, in general, a WP:RS, contributor pieces are not. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pang

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

Pretty much a resume with nothing particularly notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ACADEMIC. References mention him but are not about him. ... discospinster _talk 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 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) 19:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam on nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How csn i improve him? I checked his information quite a lot and created it. 02:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 都是迷情 (talk • contribs)
Delete Per WP:NOTRESUME. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 00:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Freeborn

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

Does not appear to pass GNG, NENT, or ANYBIO. Lack of reliable independent secondary sources for a BLP. Only current source is an alumni magazine article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 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) 19:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing comes up as more than day-to-day behind-the-scenes work in the film industry. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of RS coverage to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlife

(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) 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:47, 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) 19:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found no WP:RS of meeting WP:N. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable as per WP:BAND or WP:GNG. The article was created by a WP:SPA, so was possibly/likely promotional in nature. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as soon as possible. Total junk. Dial911 (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Edrisch

(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) 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:38, 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) 19:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kandelabrum

(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 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 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) 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm invoking NOTAVOTE here. Based on strength of WP:PAG based argument I believe there is rough consensus to delete. The two pro-Keep comments (one of which was weak) are not ringing endorsements. And "mentions" in RS sources don't ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Economics

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable business venture. Most sources are just the CEO's profile. 2Joules (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half of the article is a biography of its founder; the rest basically says the company exists and people intern at it. Nothing that satisfies notability guidelines, and I am unable to find anything substantive that isn't PR-type material. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been mentioned on notable sources like Forbes, Washington Post etc. There are more references about it but I am not using it as these look promotional and I haven't added it. There are way more links about Prestige Economics but I dont know how to use these in the article. If someone could help me it is going to be great. Secondly, most of the forecasting companies that I looked at on Wikipedia have only one or two references and they all look pretty similar so I thought this is how the page is supposed to be BrookeCook (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)— BrookeCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 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) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's OK as a stub, but needs more relevant references to be useful. Is there not some kind of template to structure information on US corporations and business entities?T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Just a private consulting firm going about its business. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 2 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) 02:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dotto Tech

(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)

Article about a TV show, and a WP:BLP of its host, which are both relying entirely on primary sources rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage that would pass WP:GNG. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of the show's article (but not of the BLP), back in the day when a television series was granted an automatic presumption of notability as long as its existence was verifiable. This is, however, one of many areas where our inclusion standards have been tightened up considerably in the past decade -- TV shows must now be reliably sourced as the subject of media coverage to clear WP:TVSHOW. I cannot find any satisfactory coverage about this show, however -- even on a deep ProQuest search, all I'm actually getting is "Steve Dotto is the host of Dotto Tech" notes at the bottom of newspaper articles where Steve Dotto is the bylined author of the content and not its subject. But that's not how you source either a TV show or its host as notable -- they have to be the subject of coverage written by other people, not the creators of coverage about other things, to clear a Wikipedia sourcing standard. All of which means that neither the show nor the host gets an automatic notability pass just for existing, but neither of them is properly sourced as actually meeting the required standard of reliable source coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 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) 19:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Racing Career

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

Non-notable browser game. All references from unreliable website. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 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) 18:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Shewale

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

after cleaning up the refspam, I did some before and can find little in the way of coverage. It appears she's been in a few notable movies/shows but none of which have garnered substantial coverage of her. Most I can find are passing mentions, basic press releases and other wikis. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 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) 18:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete roles in multiple (even 2) notable films not found. Dial911 (talk) 00:57, 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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takes (framework)

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

Non-notable web framework. Probable self-promotion or undisclosed COI editing. A Google search found no in-depth coverage (but many false positives with other topics). GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 07:29, 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 19:00, 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) 18:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily L. Spratt

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - the articles referenced simply mention her/have a few quotes, but are not in depth or about her specifically. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete academics who have not yet completed their PhD are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still dong PHD.Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly doesn't pass PROF. Doesn't pass GNG either. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not the strongest consensus but having been relisted and with no comments supporting a Keep, we are where we are. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaadu Hai Nasha Hai

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

The song won three awards and the content can very well be incorporated in the film article. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: - See the reactions to your other nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohe Rang Do Laal. You need to provide more reason to delete the article, which is permanent, as opposed to a different process like merging or improving. See WP:BEFORE. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information from the lead section is either present in the film article. Plus, there is no information about its making or inception or video. Accolades can be put into parent article as well. I did not move it boldly because the creator is singer's fan and has been contributing accordingly. He has reverted me elsewhere so did not want to start edit warring. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Vivvt. A completely redundant article, its info can easily be merged into the film's article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. I am singularly unimpressed by the WP:PAG basis of the Keep arguments, however after being relisted and with no pro-deletion commentary, we are where we are. This close is w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekklesia Project

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

Source searches are only providing directory listings, name mentions and passing mentions; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep -- This appears to be an organisation that has held an annual conference yearly for 20 years. The article suffers from the same problem as with many organisations, that the main source on it is an internal one. Unless organisations are controversial enough to get attacked in the media, they do not get external coverage, but that should not prevent them being notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google scholar results seems to show that the project is active and influential. A small number of the the articles are about the project (such as this one), likely enough to write an encyclopedic article. Others refer to the project as a part of the publication process/research/etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Answers

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

Several source searches are not providing adequate coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Catholic Answers is certainly encyclopedic. The article may be deficient, but it can be improved with a bit of work. I'm working on other projects at the moment, but I can direct my attention once they are done. Ergo Sum 12:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Deficient" hardly begins to describe the problem. The criteria for a WP entry for an organization include "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But most of the citations are the organization itself and the others are all related to various degrees. That includes its own promotion of a cruise and items for sale in its shop. Follow the citation to the USCCB and you'll find the organization listed in a table, but no significant coverage. There's a fawning profile of Keating on EWTN that I suppose is a form of journalism, but hard to distinguish from advocacy and not exactly independent. The other EWTN citation is just to a program schedule. Again, not significant by any measure. The Charity Navigator citation would be useful if the article itself had substance, but still doesn't meet the coverage criteria. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While there doesn't appear to be a lot of in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources, there is definitely a great deal of light coverage. Just to list a few: Huffington Post, Live Science, The Guardian, The Bulletin (newspaper), The San Diego Union-Tribune (newspaper), Hello Giggles, and Teen Vogue. This is legit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see seven passing mentions... The Banner talk 11:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per GoneIn60 above. Jzsj (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need reliable, independent sources that write about the organisation. Passing mentions fail that point. The Banner talk 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: due to GoneIn60's incredible job finding new sources. The article will look great after expanded and newly found sources added.– Lionel^(talk) 11:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, GoneIn60 brilliantly found seven passing mentions with no value. Please read WP:RS. The Banner talk 11:42, 1 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) 02:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIRESTRIKE

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

Military laser weapon system, and a super awesome one too, says the article. It reads like a product brochure, no wonder given that it's sourced only to press releases. Google indicates some media coverage, but these pieces are based on the same press releases and link to them. If this is notable, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch in any case. Sandstein 17:58, 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? 00:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, not nearly enough independent coverage yet. We shouldn't be reprinting sales copy here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein lacks independent coverage as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I am invoking NOTAVOTE here. While the Keep !votes are more numerical I am unimpressed by the WP:PAG basis of their arguments. That said there is only one comment supporting deletion and that is not enough to establish consensus even in the face of the rather weak Keep arguments. After three relists it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masao Akashi

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

As the article creator said on creation, there is only one source (in Japanese). Now there are a couple more, but none, including the Japanese one, pass WP:RS. Arrangers are rarely notable, and there's no evidence of non-trivial coverage of this one. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources doesn't pass WP:RS? Which one is reliable? What other informations you need in order to keep this page alive? Thank you!

(Qucipuci0)

Keep This page could prove useful to listeners of Japanese music and the references are decently diverse. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. The issue is sourcing, not whether it's interesting or not. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Rickinasia user said, for such main reason I created an article about Masao Akashi. I didn't include information in bio more than what's available and verifiable. Instead, I made list of involved artist bigger because that's where I have more confidence with. --- (Qucipuci0)

Keep. Played bass for B'z and arranged or produced for many extremely notable bands. As an aside, this might be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Category:Japanese music arrangers, Category:American music arrangers, etc. seem to indicate that arrangers are often notable. Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What other source I must add for this page being kept and not be anymore in list of deleted? So far I add sources are all what I asked from my japanese friends. --- (Qucipuci0)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike composers, music arrangers are usually not notable. There are surely exceptions, but don't think this is one of them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 19 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)} 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Masao Akashi formed his own band under name "Masao Akashi Band"(MAB ref. from onwards) and was active in years 1996-1998. Here is proof.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001120215900/http://www.jin.ne.jp:80/jack3/disco3.htm --- here is his profile http://web.archive.org/web/20001120215900/http://www.blue-z.co.jp/Akashi.html under discography list you can see "MAB profile". they were signed under indies label blue-z records. and here is official profile from "MAB" profile http://web.archive.org/web/19991014020221/http://www.wao.or.jp:80/user/kirimura/AMG/akashi.html

This informations was available but I didn't have any source of it so I didnt include it earlier.

Stefka probably doesnt know how difficult is to obtain old informations in Japanese. I better speak out once situation is known instead of saying false statements. He's very popular in Japan. I also included on profile television appearance, i was lucky to find footage on net. Information if he made another appearance is difficult.

---(Qucipuci0)

You continue to make arguments for deletion. The fact that it is difficult to find sources is an explanatio nf or why there are no sources to establish notability, not a reason for ignoring that fact. WP:POPULAR is likewise not a reason for keeping. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly cited article with multiple claims failed to me Wikipedia's criteria verifiability in addition to that the subject also failed to meet WP:BIO. In the previous AfD the result of the discussion was keep yet it was not properly established whether the subject is really notable. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – More than meets Notability guidelines. Referenced anD quoted in the Outlook India, Washington Post and Times of India to just name a few and shown here [17]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Generally the sources are the articles that he wrote himself and others who have referred him are reliable. My Lord (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only two independent reliable third party sources are merely passing mentions of him...Delete (Discounting all sources written by him or which could have been influenced by him....) — F R ⁺ 11:33, 18 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 09:55, 19 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)} 17:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. After two relists and no clearly defined pro-Keep or delete comments it's time to close this. Based on the discussion I am not comfortable calling this a "soft delete." Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Hatcher Davis

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

I tagged this article for proposed deletion and I was surprised that Atlantic306 removed the tag based on the rationale that Davis's 1972 book Peirce's Epistemology has about 100 citations on Google Scholar. A mere 100 citations of only one book since 1972 does not make him "highly cited", which is one of the notability criteria for academics. Also, that was Davis's last book even though he was an academic for another 40 years. Here is my original rationale for proposed deletion, which is still valid: I was reading a book by this article's subject, William Hatcher Davis, and I decided to look him up. His obituary in the Elk Valley Times indicates that he died a year ago. I was about to add his birth and death dates to this article, but then I noticed that the article has been tagged for notability since February 2010. After some more research, I could not find any information that indicates that he meets the notability guidelines for academics. Therefore, per WP:DEL8, it is time for this article to rest in peace, just like Professor Davis. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Davis may meet notability requirements for an author based on reviews of his works. I do not have access to these reviews of The Freewill Question, but here are the citations : Exner, K. (1972). Davis william H.: "the freewill question" (book review). Meisenheim: Anton Hain, etc. and The freewill question (book review) (1973). . Madrid: Facultades de Filosofía de la Compañía de Jesús en España. And one for his more cited book Peirce’s Epistemology [18]. The common names of these books make them hard to search in databases...maybe others will have better luck. If this survives AfD, this link may help fill some biographical details [19]. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's worth pointing out that the reason why Davis's 1972 book Peirce's Epistemology has about 100 citations on Google Scholar is because the book's subject, Charles Sanders Peirce, is a notable philosopher who has been influential in multiple fields. Those who are citing the book are writing about Peirce, not about Davis. Biogeographist (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're talking about what Davis said about Peirce, then it counts in Davis' favor. That's one of the big themes of WP:PROF: academics can be notable through their work, as evidenced by citations and other indices, even if people don't lavish biographical attention on them. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined a sample of the sources that cite Davis's Peirce's Epistemology, and it appears to me that the sources that cite Davis's book are citing it as a secondary source on Peirce, or as an example of a book covering a certain topic in Peirce's work, not as an example of Davis having contributed original ideas that are widely discussed, which is the point of Criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Any one of many other secondary sources could be cited in place of Davis's book; see, e.g., McKaughan, Daniel J. (October 2008). "From ugly duckling to swan: C. S. Peirce, abduction, and the pursuit of scientific theories". Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 44 (3): 446–468 (449). Other examples of the Generative Interpretation include Nickles (1985) and Joseph Brent's (1998) biography of Peirce, which emphasizes Peirce's idea that abduction is a form of guessing by which we come up with explanatory hypotheses to be tested. This approach is also found, to varying degrees, in Davis (1972), Shanahan (1986), Roth (1988), Turrisi (1990), and—despite more attention to economic considerations—Brown (1983). Biogeographist (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, he wouldn't have to have provided novel ideas; if his book were regarded as a definitive text on Peirce scholarship, then that would count in his favor under WP:PROF#C4. However, I can't find any evidence that this is the case in this particular instance. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hypothetical at this point since none of the criteria in WP:Notability (academics) appears to apply in this case, but if by "text" you mean a "textbook used in courses" (per Criterion 4: widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education) then Criterion 4 would apply. Biogeographist (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that if Davis' book were widely used in university philosophy courses, then WP:PROF#C4 would apply. However, I do not think that is the case, so as you say, it's all hypothetical at this point. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 27 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)} 17:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Knight

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

No notable wrestler. He is just a develoment talent in WWE's farm territory. Just had a few matches. Too soon for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - wrestler is an active member of WWE's televised roster, article has significant independent coverage. Dannys-777 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "significant independent coverage" looks like wp:routine. Most of the sources are just a few televised matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 3 different WP:RS which have independent articles based on him. I believe this is enough to establish WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. The articles based on him are all from the same local media group from his hometown. Nikki♥311 04:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dannys-777. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is it written that being an active member of WWE's roster makes you automatically notable (WP:INHERIT)? Please provide a rationale for how he has significant independent coverage. Nikki♥311 01:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[20], [21], [22] (although this source requires a subscription to view it), [23], and I did find others with a mention, and there are the other obvious reliable wrestling sites. Next time, Nikki311, go at the person who made the initial comment not me. Galatz made a comment about sources, but you never went at him. No need to come at me. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 4 are passing mentions. Sources 2 and 3 are from the same local media group from his hometown (as I said above in response to Galatz). I responded to him and you. I just replied under your comment, because it came after what I initially wrote. Nikki♥311 23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 19 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)} 17:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Kuvayev

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

Non-notable spammer / sex offender. Most of the article has been tagged for years, and is mostly unsourced, and a search for sources brings back trivial passing mentions. In particular, claims against sexual abuse need multiple, high-quality impeccable sources, and we really don't have the required coverage here in my view. This is a textbook BLP violation - get rid of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inserted cites from established publications here [24], [25], [26]. Otrantos (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not good enough for a BLP on an alleged sex offender; we need good sustained coverage such that the article would be well-written and sourced anyway. How would you like it if this article was about you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't think alleged sex offenders have a separate notability threshold. However, it seems this individual is primarily notable for the spam case from circa 2005 (the sexual molestation charge doesn't show up in English at least - sourced to Russian lenta.ru). This case received some coverage - but not sufficient in my eyes to pass NCRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on RS like this good book or BBC, he appears to be a notable spammer. That alone and significant number of sources retrieved by Google searches justifies the inclusion. As about other charges, they appear here and in other sources, I do not see all them as problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable for bad causes, but still notable. Coverage in RS is evident. Dial911 (talk) 01:11, 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) 03:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Eaton (writer)

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

There are no sources in the article and nothing more meaningful could be found in a Google search to provide the necessary reliable and verifiable sourcing needed to establish notability. I guess that appearing as Chickenman in a McDonald's commercial might be a weak claim of notability, but the lack of traction and coverage of his writing is an issue. The article has been around for more than a decade but is still poorly integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, no citations included in the article, and even finding citations to include in the article would appear to be very difficult. Therefore, fails WP:BIO. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG as per current sourcing. Dial911 (talk) 01:08, 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) 18:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuj Banker

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

The article is about a good ophthalmologist doing good work, but I can't find anything that establishes notability. Most of the article is unsourced, and the awards constitute a long list - but those I can identify are minor. None of the sources are able to establish notability, and searches online don't seem to come up with anything significant. Bilby (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, do you still think its a UPE creation? Atlantic306 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately yes, it was. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PROMO and many of the claims are not supported in reliable sources so does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete it may be possible to have a page on this person but this page is hopelessly promotional and would have to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is okay. but lacks RS. Dial911 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CV. One well cited paper (303 cites), 2nd named author. Rest of publications mostly uncited (h-index of around 2). Doesn't pass PROF. Clearly doesn't pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Sakhai

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of user:MaryK6754 who incorrectly placed an AfD notice on the article's talk page. No reason for deletion was offered, but she had previously attempted a prod (also incorrectly) with the rationale "Please delete post. The information on it is incorrect and it is causing undue emotional hardship to the individual in question." I am not personally supporting deletion for the moment. SpinningSpark 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if this page is deleted, the next top Google results for "Ely Sakhai" are: "Forging artwork - Art forger Ely Sakhai - NYMag," "Art Gallery Owner Pleads Guilty In Forgery Found by Coincidence ...," and "Foiling the Forgers with Noah Charney – Gauguin | Art | Agenda ...." It's hard to see how the Wikipedia page is responsible for undue emotional hardship. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are other articles about Ely Sakhai, there is still a problem about the notability. This article focuses entirely on negative aspects of the subject. Just like the previous discussion, we should be 100% confident that the subject is worthy of inclusion within an encyclopedia especially if it is affecting his private, personal life. I am sure if he is looking to have this removed at this day and age it is affecting his children and/or grandchildren who may want to gain a position in the art world without prejudice. We should also consider that many of the articles sourced are non-independent sources. I believe we should consider these legitimate arguments for deletion. I do not think this man has any intention of involving himself in crime again, especially since his charges are dated. I believe we should edit some of the negative information about himself or at least remove his first name so that the request can be partially filled. 50.101.66.147 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)— 50.101.66.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One proper remedy would be to add information supported by WP:RS about this individual's more admirable activities, cf. : Martha Stewart.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To IP editor: some people are notable only for the crimes they committed. Sakhai is a convicted criminal and we need to reflect that in a dispassionate manner, relying solely on reliable sources. Unfortunately, the impact on his "children and/or grandchildren" is not Wikipedia's burden, but rather Sakhai's. "You know how the media are. They wait for a mistake and that's all you are. It happened to Hitler. No one ever talks about his paintings." freshacconci (✉) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly inappropriate to drag Hitler into this. TROUT editor who did so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like that this is the person's attempt (or maybe his relatives) to remove his deeds from Wikipedia. possibly because the information hinders his current scheme we have yet to hear about. I don't think the arguments of the anon above hold water. - Skysmith (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not slander subject with unsupported accusation that he is involved in a "current scheme" of which you provide no evidence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article's sources are not all verifiable. Additionally, these sources, for example, the way back machine https://web.archive.org/web/20150929004401/http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/30/1101577485488.html are not reputable for illustrating verifiable information. This website simply archives cached pages of websites, it does not audit whether the information is bias or factual. This page could be cleaned up a bit for this individual's sake. The nomination was made in good faith, and if someone is going to make an argument in ill-faith, that he is a routine criminal, then I would suggest to leave it in the hands of the judicial system, not Wikipedia. In response to the comments above - you have no evidence or information indicating that there is a current scheme doing on, therefore you should not be posting false accusations and information on this forum. 172.106.140.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — 172.106.140.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Are you claiming that the Internet Archive can't be trusted to make a faithful copy of an article published in The Age, a reputable and reliable newspaper? If so, I'd like to see some evidence. Impugning the integrity of the Internet Archive is a pretty serious charge. Pburka (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to the IP editor: Sakhai was convicted; this is not spurious gossip about someone accused of a crime. The article reflects this and per WP:CRIMINAL there is no valid reason to not have an article. freshacconci (✉)
Keep:Certainly notable. No reason to delete. Recent significant criminal activity by a man still in his mid-60s. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliably sourced article about significant criminal fraud. SIGCOV in WP:RS from which a better article could be created exists, eg. : New York Magazine How to Make a Fake; Buy a mid-level Gauguin. Duplicate it. Slap the original papers on the copy. Sell both paintings to gullible collectors, while the art world looks the other way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable as a criminal and art forger (however, not as an art dealer or gallery owner) and the article is well-sourced. Article subject's feelings are irrelevant if we are presenting well-sourced facts and the subject passes the threshold of being a public figure, which he does. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes subject's feelings are mostly irrelevant, however, if this article breaches the privacy of other innocent individuals then I have a hard time advocating for keeping the article up or unedited. Having the article come in question for the second time must have some merit.JennyL345 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)— JennyL345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Taking this complaint seriously I read the 1st AfD. Editors argued cogently for keeping the article, which supports a "keep" decision here. I do feel empathy for the family, but that does not justify deleting information covered INDEPTH in serious periodicals an din a number of well-regarded books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whose privacy do you feel it breaches? I don't think it mentions any other individuals except the artists whose works he forged. Pburka (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The User:JennyL345 account above has done nothing else than taken part of this discussion - Skysmith (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the anons and new accounts taking part have some connection to the subject. This doesn't invalidate their arguments. If they can demonstrate that there is some privacy violation I would seriously consider revising or deleting the article. But there's been no cogent argument presented. Pburka (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with the subject. Yes, I haven't made a lot of contributions but I plan on contributing to other discussions after as well. There is no mention to his family in this article, however, it is most likely this would affect his children who are trying to live their own lives. There are articles online referencing that he has children and how he is trying to do right in the Jewish community. This Wikipedia page only harms his efforts to make a difference within the lives of the children in the Jewish community and the lives of his own children, regardless of their age. It even shows here that he is not active in the art world anymore and is now in real estate. This is not on the page. This is a privacy violation because Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. This page is overtly negative. This right to privacy should extend to Ely and his family.JennyL345 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If family members wish to disassociate themselves from a convicted felon, they're free to do so. Many people change their names for this reason. Wikipedia shouldn't delete a well sourced and apparently accurate page about a notable person simply because their conduct embarrasses their children. If you wish to add information about his new business ventures, please provide sources, and I'll be happy to make the additions. (Consider this my keep !vote). Pburka (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyL345: "I am not affiliated with the subject". Please, you are more likely to be taken seriously if you show some honesty. SpinningSpark 18:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's argument re: the discussion in the first AfD. Furthermore all the Delete votes come from SPA accounts, or SPA IP addresses. --Theredproject (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable art crime, as established by many sources. (See, not all IP votes are deletes).198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:06, 1 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) 18:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanopa

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

Hoax. Created on 1 April 2014 by an editor who otherwise only vandalized articles. The goddess comes from "Journey of the Lost Princess: Adventure and Romance in the Mysterious Land of the Incas", a self-published fiction book by Roger Huff from 2010 [27]. This is the only reference to this God from before 2014 I could find.

This "god" is not included in Daily Life of the Incas, Incan Mythology and Other Myths of the Andes, The Incas: New Perspectives, Handbook of Inca Mythology, ...

It is included in Cultural Foundations and Interventions in Latino/a Mental Health: History, Theory and within Group Differences (strange title, but from Routledge, a respectable publisher), but that book is from 2016, so later than our article.

Surpsirisngly, I could find web references to this God (though not from reliable sources) from before our article and even the book; however, it turns out that this goddess is a much older Wikipedia hoax (perhaps one of the longest surviving hoaxes we ever had): it was added to Inca society in May 2007[28], during a merger from Women and clothing in Incan Society. The goddess Kanopa had been present in that article from the very start in September 2006, more than 11 years ago...[29]

So, unless I missed something in my search (which of course is quite possible), this is a multi-article hoax stretching back over 11 years which has since made it into fiction and at least one reliable source. Congrats! Fram (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Inca Goddess of Pregnancy (or at least of fertility and child birth) was Pachamama.[30] I don't see any evidence that this article is not a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment "Kanopa" appears to be a variant of "conopa" which is a name for Incan ritual figurines, see [31], [32]. It is possible that this was not a hoax but a mistake by the author in confusing the name of the figurine with the name of the god. In any event, it does not satisfy WP:V and is a good catch by nominator. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Perhaps, rewriting might be better per below. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete (see my comment below). I don't think it's a hoax, but it may be inaccurate. Several sources give the definition of Canopa as "household diety", eg Conquest of the Incas (2004). If that's not going back far enough for you, then try Peru; Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas (1877) which predates Wikipedia, the internet, and the birth of any editor here (but not predating hoaxes of course). Kanopa is clearly a variant spelling of Canopa and this article "Curzo, the ancient capital of the Incas" (1856) says that many Canopas had specific attributes such as Sara-canopa (spirit of the harvest), Chacra-canopa (spirit of the farm), and Llama-canopa (spirit of the flocks). It seems perfectly feasible to me that some Inca family had a Canopa dedicated to looking after pregnancy, but I have no source for that predating Wikipedia. But even if we have to strike all mention of pregnancy from the article, we are still left with a notable subject at either Kanopa or Canopa. SpinningSpark 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian wiki version has some additional sources: it:Conopa. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that find. I don't really agree with your conclusion, the best course is to delete Kanopa and if wanted create an article or redirect for Conopa, but at least it gives some insight in what might have happened (as a rather complicated error, or as an attempt to create a hoax with some resemblance to reality). Fram (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Assuming the research of other contributors is correct, the appropriate course is to rename to Canopa or Conopa, but the present placeholder text cannot survive, as it is clearly wrong. We have the choice of the closing admin renaming and substituting an accurate definition, or TNT. Even the renaming option will not provide a satisfactory article: we will probably have nothing but a dictionary entry (which would be transwikified).
Delete. Whether the 2006 introduction of this content, originally by Sallybryant was intentional misinformation or merely a very badly mistaken reading of legitimate content is impossible to determine, but it remains factually incorrect everywhere it appears. Checking for links to the Kanopa article reveals a mention in Inca empire, claiming that pregnant women retained their household duties, with the addition of prayers and offerings to Kanopa. It's even a cited claim; referenced to Time-Life Books' Incas: Lords of Gold and Glory (while not a high-quality source, it's likely a reliable one). The only problem? That source doesn't support the claim. Or, rather, it supports all of the cited text except the part about prayers and offerings to Kanopa, a "deity" not mentioned at all in the work (nor anything vaguely similar on page 129, where pregnancy is discussed!). I agree that the ritual figurines, which sometimes were used to represent household or family gods, represent a notable topic for which we have no article. But whether they are called conopa (the most common spelling), canopa (less so), konopa (in one 1935 French journal article), or kanopa (perhaps exclusively by the 1901 Spanish-language El Oculto Entre los Aborígenes de la América del Sud: Los Quichuas Raza Ariana), they in no way represent or resemble the "Kanopa" deity as it has been introduced to Wikipedia, which means the existing text must not be retained. Regardless of whether this was intended as a hoax, we should treat it as one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a copy of Incas: Lords of Gold and Glory right here, and can confirm that there's nothing about "Kanopa" or "Canopa" I can find in it. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax - even if Kanopa/Conopa is a verifiable entity, WP:TNT applies. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, sooner rather than later. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and trout this source for copying this. Note much for this in a check on older books.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. user:Sallybryant is being unfairly blamed here. Her original article, Women and clothing in Incan Society says "When she did find out she was pregnant she prayed and made offerings to an Incan god, kanopa" and that is still the wording in Inca society. That is perfectly consistent with praying to a household god. Nowhere is it claimed that Kanopa is the god of pregnancy. That is entirely an artifact of the article up for AfD, created much more recently (2014). The creator of this article is user:Xertinia777 and all her other edits have been unremittingly vandalism, or at least hopelessly useless to an encyclopaedia. So much so, that I am persuaded to withdraw AGF and change my recommendation to delete. SpinningSpark 12:42, 1 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. While the numbers are near equal Keep v Delete, when weighing the quality of arguments on the basis of WP:PAG and analysis of the article in that light, it's not close. That said, I concede that this is not a very strong consensus but after two relists, we are where we are. See also WP:NOTAVOTE. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Killer Pussies

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

Non-notable musician! Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO!! Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources!!! The editor whose username is Z0 20:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I seem to have voted "delete" a lot on here in the past few days, and I really don't want to get a reputation as a deletionist, because I don't see myself as that. But honestly, even the most ardent Wikipedia inclusionist would struggle to vote "keep" for this one. One apparent novelty album, one mix on Radio 1 over twenty years ago, and apart from a handful of singles, that appears to be it. Even the Discogs link at the bottom of the article links not to Tasha Killer Pussies discography, as you would expect, but to a compilation album to which Ms Marsden contributes a single track. Kudos to Ms Marsden for getting a Radio 1 Essential Mix slot, but one mix on a national radio station isn't enough to make her notable, especially when over the course of many years the station invited dozens of DJs to contribute mixes. I have no idea whether Ms Marsden still DJs (I kind of hope she does), but I can't even find anything non-notable, never mind notable, that she's done over the last two decades. In a weird way you could even call her a pioneer, as sampling vacuum cleaners precedes the "hoover 'n' horns" tag attached to the music of the hard house scene that emerged a few years later. Richard3120 (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I wrote this article, way back when, one of the notablilty guidelines was "has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" and hence her Essential Mix qualified her for this. This has now been rewritten to "has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". What counts as substantial? Technohead1980 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is finding a reliable source for this, something that isn't YouTube or an illegal download website. There's a mention of her in this book as well: [33]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that Radio One themselves don't keep a list of past essential mixes but alas I cannot find one. I assume that a site like this is not reliable enough? http://www.djsets.co.uk/blu-rays/essential-mixes/index.shtml On another note, this page is completely unsourced List of Essential Mix episodes Technohead1980 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 20 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 13:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kobi Karp Architecture & Interior Design

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

Obviously promotional article written by WP:SPAs. A non-notable award, some press releases and not much else. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth independent coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP, and would have done so even before that was tightened up. Unambiguous promotion from the day it was created. The practice is apparently of only limited and entirely local significance, routinely doing the work that architecture practices routinely do – restoring a hotel building and the like. It gets a few passing mentions on Gbooks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There might be significant sources by Forbes, NBC News and the Miami Herald.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 12:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be many articles about the architect and his work - [34][35][36][37][38][39], and therefore should qualify under WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kobi Karp. Notable guy; notable firm; notable buildings. It may be that Nom and early commenters searched the firm's long name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 20 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 13:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly promotional and was created by a marketeer. Rip it up and start again. No objection to someone starting an article on the "notable" Kobi Karp himself. Deb (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting and taking a deeper dive. There are quite a few sources with material like this 2015 article about a new hotel in the Sun-Sentinel, "Miami-based Kobi Karp Architecture & Interior Design conceived the eye-catching contemporary structure, with a rooftop pool featuring expansive views of the Atlantic Ocean. The firm was able to incorporate modern elements such as spacious corridors and dramatic floor-to-ceiling windows"], from which an article could perhaps be cobbled together addressing the firm/principal's style and career. However, I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV of the firm or the man that amounts to critical analysis of either of the architecture of that argues for an impact on other projects and architects.Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SIP, also no references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Paine

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

Article mostly relies on self-published sources. Claim of notability fails WP:NACADEMIC: no awards, no honors, no impact in the field. The article also fails WP:POET: as works have no notable influence.

One more thing: per WP:BIO, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." With that in mind, setting aside any notion of Google Scholar establishing notability (which is incorrect, as one of my university professors, for instance, should have an article if that alone establishes notability), three articles about a "Patty Paine" appear on Google News: one of which can be immediately discarded, as it's a passing reference regarding a NYC concert event. The second is a note from the blog of the London Review of Books, in 2013:

Patty Paine, who teaches at the campus I did not know Virginia Commonwealth University has in Doha, and edits Diode, an online poetry magazine, pointed me to the site of another zine.

The final source is from an Abu Dhabi English-language newspaper, The National, which says that Patty Paine Gibbons, in 2011, is "VCU-Q’s [Virginia Commonwealth University-Qatar] assistant English professor".

I submit that the two references, even when combined, amount to trivial coverage of the subject of this article. As such, in this editor's opinion, the subject of this article is not notable, and the article should be deleted. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 18:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Diode Poetry Journal and Diode Editions are independent and not self-published articles or sources. Paine is the founding Editor-In-Chief of Diode Poetry Journal but the journal also has input from several editors: Jeff Lodge, editor Emeritus and Law Alsobrook, editor/art director. Any links directly to Diode Poetry Journal or Diode Editions are used to establish titles of published works therein. Furthermore, many notable poets already documented within Wikipedia, such as Victoria Chang, Khaled Mattawa, and Kaveh Akbar have been published by Diode Poetry Journal and under the editorial oversight of Patty Paine. The same goes for Diode Editions. For example, Paine served as editor for the book Bright Power, Dark Peace by Brynn Saito and Traci Brimhall, a notable poet already on Wikipedia.
WP:POET (WP:AUTHOR):
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
a. Patty Paine served as editor for 24 books published through Diode Editions. The books have individually received critical acclaim and been the focus of articles and reviews. For example, Rare Birds by Shelley Wong, was the focus of six reviews from independent sources, as follows:

WP:ACADEMIC:
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
a. See evidence for WP:POET (WP:AUTHOR) above.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
a. Patty Paine is CURRENTLY the Interim Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, not an *Assistant Professor.

Interim Associate Dean for Academic Affairs http://www.qatar.vcu.edu/people

Zsdonald (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Interim associate dean" is very far from the head of entire university level needed to pass WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but Paine still passes WP:ACADEMIC #9 (see evidence above).Zsdonald (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 12:08, 20 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 13:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No clear Keep arguments after the discussion has been relisted. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signals Network

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

A non profit organisation advocates free press / public right to know. A WP:BEFORE could not find any WP:SIGCOV that supported by WP:RS to pass WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, doesn't meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia Watson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mia Watson. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: The organization released an official call for information together with international medias and I think the deletion might be reconsidered. (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/21/the-intercept-welcomes-tech-whistleblowers-as-part-of-a-global-partnership/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/21/new-witness-protection-scheme-whistle-blowers-exposing-technology/). I have other references in German and French, can I add them to the article? Also, could someone tell me how long I have to improve the article before its deletion? Thanks a lot for you feedback. Mathieuleddet (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieuleddet Hi, The piece from Intercept is considered not independent source as they the partner of The Signals Network, but he Telegraph.co.uk is a good source (independent and over in dept of the subject). Sources from any languages are permissible as long as their are secondary sources (independent and reliable) to demonstrate the notability of the subject. The listing of this article for deletion is 7 days from the initial entry date (June 20, 2018) and will be relisted if there are not enough participants in the decision. If you would find and add 2 more sources, I will withdraw the nomination and would love to keep this page. For anything else, do message me on my talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieuleddet Both new sources (Personal data: five international media launch an investigation from sudouest.fr and UNE PLATEFORME DE MISE EN RELATION ENTRE MÉDIAS ET LANCEURS D'ALERTE from strategies.fr) are interview pieces - they are primary source. At current the article has only 1 source (Telgraph.uk) considered reliable and independent. Article needs significant coverage. Would let other editor to voice on this AfD and see how it would fare. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:11, 26 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 13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical Control Computer Sciences

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

I got nothing. GMG ^talk 10:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 20 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 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding anything of any depth that isn't a press release. Chris857 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Basie (talk) 11:39, 2 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. I considered closing as "no consensus" but after some reflection I do think that a rough, though not strong consensus exists to keep this. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Priscilla Shaw

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

Not a fun one to bring if her claim to fame is correct, but even then she's (arguably? Is WP:V met?) only the second female mayor in S.C.: the article's been tagged as an orphan for eight years, the link to the one reference doesn't work anymore (archived at [40], the other reference is "find a grave", and a WP:BEFORE search is scarce. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering the age, what reliable sources may exist on her are very likely either not digitized at all or not indexed by Google and the likes. With some difficulty, I found an article in the Florence Morning News of May 30, 1956 on p.2, headline "SHAW AFB DEDICATES NAMESAKE MEMORIAL", which at least verifies she was mayor of Sumter albeit not whether she was second in all SC (the article itself is more about her brother Lt. Ervin David Shaw with some trivial mentions of Martha) here, a single-line mention in the San Rafael Daily Independent Journal of May 4, 1954, on p.15 in an article with headline "Mary Margaret McBride Project Winners Include 4 Californians", which again verifies she was mayor of Sumter and also states her to be one of four national winners of the 1954 Mary Margaret McBride Project, "for political crusading". (Of the four mentioned Californian winners, one was also a national winner, the others received special citations) here. While neither of those are significant coverage in the least, their existence proves her existence and being mayor of Sumter at some point and suggests other sources may very well exist offline. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for your research - it's clear to me she passed WP:V for being the mayor, but her claim of being the second in S.C. hasn't been made clear by the available sources. Apologies if that was unclear. SportingFlyer talk 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source her better. Given that she was mayor in the 1950s, it's very definitely true that one would need to dig into news archiving tools, such as a ProQuest database or microfilms, to really establish whether she has enough sourcing to clear GNG or not — but (a) Sumter SC is not large enough to hand her an automatic presumption of notability under NPOL just for existing as a mayor, (b) it isn't even large enough that the purely local media coverage that's routinely expected to always exist for mayors would be enough in and of itself to get her over GNG, (c) being the second female mayor in her entire state (or even being the first female mayor of her own city) is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts her from still having to clear GNG on the sourcing, and (d) if a person doesn't pass the relevant SNG for her occupation, then a GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing has to be shown to exist, not just presumed to maybe exist, before she earns the "keep and flag for referencing improvement" treatment. So to get her kept, what would have to be shown is that sourcing does exist, which expands in depth and/or volume and/or geographic range beyond the bare minimum of what every mayor of everywhere could always show. If somebody's willing to put in enough work to do that, then this can be recreated — but in the meantime, to be kept in this form its improvability would have to be demonstrated, and not just theorized as "anything's possible". Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems to have gone by "Priscilla Shaw" and more can be found on her under that name at, for instance, newspapers.com.[41] I'll try to update her page in the coming days if no one else has. In the meantime, she has an entry view-able in snippet mode on google books in Sass, H. R. The Story of the South Carolina Lowcountry, Volume 3, J. F. Hyer, 1956 p678, and was awarded the Mary Margaret McBride Award in 1954.[42] It doesn't seem obvious that that award satisfies ANYBIO, but it does imply that her community service work was nationally recognized. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep per sources found by Smmurphy. I agree that I'm not totally sure of the scope of the award, since it isn't really named as a legacy in the article of McBride herself, but I think her inclusion in the Hyer book means she will likely be found to meet the GNG with newspaper coverage from the era. matt91486 (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for the award. It's difficult to find any substantive information on it at all, and a newspapers.com search isn't helpful: [43] I don't think it satisfies ANYBIO. In terms of whether she passes WP:GNG, I still haven't been able to find any sources that would convince me to withdraw the nomination, especially considering the article was created by a user who created only four Sumter mayor articles (two of which I'd have my eye on for AfD), was orphaned for over a decade, and still contains only one source. In the very least I'd like to find a reference showing whether she was the first or second female mayor. If she were the first, I'd likely withdraw the nomination. This newspaper reference says she's the first, but is only trivial: [44] SportingFlyer talk 04:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Award was given by the "Mary Margaret McBride Project", and using that as a search term, I find information about nominees, awardees, and the selection process, here.[45] The Award was only given for a few years in the mid 1950s, but the award committee is relatively august; in 1952 it included the United Church Women, the National Council of Catholic Women, the National Council of Jewish Women, and numerous individuals such as Fannie Hurst. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two clippings call her the first female mayor in SC, the first of which is the clipping from one of the pages I linked earlier - [46] and [47]. Also, I updated the article a bit. The statement that she was the second female mayor in SC in the lede seems to have been vandalism from 2017 by an IP[48] - it originally said first and given two independent sources for her as first, I'm tempted to believe it to be verifiable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Find a grave is not at all, in any way, a reliable source. One source is not enough to pass GNG. Beyond this, extraordinary claims, like being the second female mayor in a state, need actual reliable sourcing. I do not trust the history museum of the place she was mayor to provide this. So the claims that this article is built on are just not verified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even in the era of the #MeToo movement and moves toward gender equity in politics and other fields, it's easy to forget how much of an accomplishment it was for Shaw and other women to become mayor of a US city in the mid-20th Century anywhere in the country, especially in the Deep South. The political and institutional barriers facing potential female mayors like Shaw were high and achieving the office during the 1950s is an accomplishment. Scanlan (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but even in the 1950s a woman mayor still has to have enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. As valuable as the project to get more women into Wikipedia is, we still don't and can't suspend our notability criteria just because the subject happens to be a woman — content about a woman still has to be verifiable and accurate, so the fact of her gender cannot automatically exempt a woman from having to be properly sourced as notable and not just asserted as notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 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 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added newspaper coverage of a civil rights initiative she took in 1955 as Mayor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added archived link to the Sumter County Museum's "Martha Priscilla Shaw Collection" (previously a dead link). Scanlan (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG if not NPOL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this fails WP:NOPROMO which is a showstopper. Notability takes a back seat to that policy. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unique venues

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

I don't feel WP:CORPDEPTH is met; all the references are promotional or trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the update, I tried to find new references after your suggestion from the find sources links above, I am amazed of what I found from books, HighBeam and others, there is a huge database of information. The company was established in 1986 therefore, I guess most of the material would be from pre-internet period. It's written about in many books but I added only where I was able to read the text, it's mentioned in almost every notable Hospitality book even from World Tourism Organization. Please review again and suggest improvements. Thank you DiamondDiana (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. Just an advertorial masquerading as an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced and have references from reliable sources passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE. Mia Watson (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially an advertisement. And the nature of the refeences are such that they cannot be used for showing notability Most of the references are their own press releases, saying we recommend X, published on X's web site. The rest are mentions or PR. Some are even on PRweb. I would like to know just whichreferences those sayingkeep thing are substantial and independent. I'd guess that their evaluation mistood "published in another organization's source" for "independent." If, say , the University of Maryland reports on its web site that this service rated them highly, it does not show anything more than their function in providing PR for other organizations. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 21 references and you are only emphasizing on PR and a university. It's 100% meets Wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Look again, it's mentioned in books, newspapers, magazines etc. It's famous in three continents and is an old organization. I don't understand what is the criteria here on Wikipedia, I am reading other deletion discussions and this article is above and beyond those which hardly have any references. So, if something is mentioned in books, magazines etc this means they are not independent? Every company functions differently, some supply medical equipment while others supply food, so is this organization. So instead of focusing what this company offers please focus on references. Here are the links from HigBeam and Books, see how many reliable references it has as per Wikipedia generated links.

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Unique+venues%22+-wikipedia

https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Unique+venues%22

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is what Wikipedia policy says and all references are independent of the subject. I hope you will have a deeper look, I don't want to overload the article with all references out there because I know it will become controversial as per Wikipedia policies. DiamondDiana (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kuje akk generak statements, this is only meaningful when interpreted. Accepted interpretation varies in different fields--for companies, the interpretation is now quite narrow. But each case is decided individually, , with the variability inevitable in WP decision-making. But I will check again. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate DiamondDiana (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants content briefly to improve Apollo Hospitals I can provide. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Sugar Clinics

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

Promotional article on a non notable chain of specialized clinics, apparently being operated by or in conjunction with a pharmaceutical firm that makes the medicines they dispense. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page should not be deleted as the subject is notable enough and the available citations are from good primary & secondary resources. I would also like to pay attention on the history of the article where you can see clearly a deletion tag was added on 5 June 2018 and i removed promotional content from there & explained why article shouldn't be deleted. Later the user:Onel5969 removed the speedy deletion tag. I request to all the respected editors that kindly consider all resources before put your opinion here.TheGrandSon (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the promotional content still in the article is a complete list of medical advisory board members, description of companies that supply products it uses, the statement they havea mobile app, and a research section containing 1 only 3 non-peerreviewed abstracts, which are not reliable sources for anything. Essentially all the references are outright press-releases. None of this is the least encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 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 13:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apollo Hospitals. It just seems logical to make a separate section in the Apollo Hospitals page for Apollo Sugar Clinics - it would add to the Apollo Hospitals page and function as a decent way to connect the two entities. Where are the refs? (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. I don't see a point of merging promo content on a nn entity, as it would not improve the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would improve the article - the current Apollo Hospitals page is a bit underwhelming, and adding information about a substantial subsidiary would give broader context and improve the sourcing overall.Where are the refs? (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails NCORP; blatantly promotional. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to add it as a subsection to Apollo Hospitals, if it doesn't meet notability on its own, it certainly has plenty of coverage to make a suitable mention on the parent company page.Where are the refs? (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Had I passed along, there would have been a speedy tag on it, the article resembles as advertisement, and is nothing but a promo. 2Joules (talk) 06:59, 1 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. as WP:TOOSOON Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International cricket 2019-20

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

It is too early to create this article and the current international cricket season is 2018. There is still a long way to go for the 2019/20 season. The article also needs more expansion. Abishe (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Per WP:TOOSOON. While the Future Tour Programme has been agreed, exact dates, venues, etc, have not been. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual fixture dates released yet, so WP:CRYSTAL / WP:TOOSOON. Also article does not follow usual naming convention (e.g. International cricket in 2018–19) Spike 'em (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source referenced does not cover the season in question. There is a newer one that has been released, but until the countries concerned actually confirm tour dates / match dates then I feel this article is un-needed Spike 'em (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: CRYSTAL/ WP: TOOSOON. It might also be worth mentioning that there are two phrases in the article that are in red text. Vorbee (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and wrong naming convention. Ajf773 (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON at this stage, at the least the fixture dates and details need to be finalised Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 3 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Gaspard

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

Does not meet GNG. Barbara ✐ ✉ 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a) he has a high h-index of over 50 on Google Scholar, b) he won the Francqui Prize, ~~and c) he is a member of 4 major learned societies.~~ I think this is enough to meet WP:PROF easily, especially a) which allows a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Everymorning talk to me 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking point c) since it appears that membership in major learned societies is not enough but fellowship is; this distinction has honestly always seemed kind of arcane to me. Points a) and b) as well as my keep vote itself still stand. Everymorning talk to me 17:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that arcane, though the details vary from one learned society to another and have to be checked in each case. Generally, anybody who works in the field can be a member. For example, I joined the APS when I was an undergraduate. On the other hand, being elected a fellow of the APS means that the Society recognizes you as having made "exceptional contributions to the physics enterprise; e.g., outstanding physics research, important applications of physics, leadership in or service to physics, or significant contributions to physics education" [49]. Not every learned society handles the terminology in exactly the same way. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His citation record is more than enough to qualify per WP:PROF#C1, and the Francqui Prize counts for WP:PROF#C2. Merely being a member (as opposed to a Fellow) of the various societies doesn't count, but in this case, notability is already established so that doesn't matter. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Very convincing pass of WP:PROF, which the nominator doesn't appear to have considered. – Joe (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in those other societies is not notable (and accordingly I've removed it from the article) but membership in the Royal Academy of Science, Letters and Fine Arts of Belgium does pass #C3. Given that he also passes #C1 and #C2, the outcome should be clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clear pass of WP:PROF; notable in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NPROF criteria 2 and 3. The Royal Academy is something you're elected to. Natureium (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NPROF. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip M. Epstein

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

Doesn't pass GNG, or NPROF (has published a few papers and reports, not sufficient). Sources in the article are either not independent of the subject, interviews with the subject, non-RS, passing mentions of the subject, or do not mention the subject at all. BEFORE doesn't show significant coverage (note that much of the coverage of the subject is without the middle initial - "Philip Epstein" - and that there is a more notable Philip G. Epstein of Casablanca fame that that you need to filter out of searches). Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Not entirely convinced of Queen's Counsel#Ontario from 1982 (Ontario stopped handing this out in 1985), but it is an indication of professional recognition.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Regarding GNG, speaking as a Canadian lawyer, I can attest that Philip M. Epstein meets the criteria in every way. He has been both influential and widely known and respected. ::I did try to choose references that reflected this. The court decisions I have referenced are precedents that are frequently used in Canada. I used as a template for this page the entry for Edward Greenspan, who was the equivalent to Epstein in the criminal world.

Regarding NPROF, I referenced publications that have wide circulation and influence in the Canadian legal community.

Regarding the articles, I'm not sure what leaves the impression that they are not independent of Epstein. Great care was taken to ensure that they are completely independent (e.g. no quotes form his web site). Admittedly, there are not major media features on Epstein, but that is a reflection of the media in Canada. It would be a shame if that were to cause the omission from Wikipedia of Epstein who has had a huge influence Canadian family law for several decades. He is a giant in Canadian family law.

Rddavistoronto2 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Queen's counsel [50] [51] he satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. This honour, which indicates "pre-eminence in the profession", (Final Report of Royal Commission on Legal Services, Cmnd 7648, HMSO, October 1979, volume 1, page 466) is certainly well known and significant. James500 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he is on the Queen's counsel, I agree, that makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 07:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No pro-Keep commentary and the article's author appears to agree with the OP. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thadi Balaji

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has changed since the previous AfD was closed as "delete". He is currently a contestant in a reality TV show of the common or garden variety, so no extra notability there. Yet another attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree the AfD nomination by the nominator and accept my failures to cover this topic without addressing the notability criteria. I honestly agree that I created this biography as he is currently participating in the Bigg Boss Tamil 2 TV reality game show. Not only upto this, he acted in supportive roles in few films and now working as a television personality. Yes, I believe that I committed huge mistakes in contrast to the Wikipedia guidelines. If other users wish to nominate this article for a quick deletion, I will truly recommended the views of them and also agree to their decision. Abishe (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (procedural close) (non-admin closure). MarginalCost (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi manvelishvili

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

Meets CSD A11, CSD A7. Article is made about article creator, no significance whatsoever HC7 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was made entirely too soon. The article was only 9 minutes old at the time this AFD was posted. It's unlikely that an autobiography of a YouTube Roblox blogger is likely to be notable, but we should at least give the author time to finish the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article actually should have been proposed for a speedy deletion because of the improper execution of the author in creating the article. The content in the article is not properly arranged and looks clumsy. Abishe (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - I'm going to do this now. Deb (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There does not appear to be much appetite for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the appropriate talk page(s). Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Fliegerbauer

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

Not notable as per WP:VICTIM, only know as a victim in the Munich massacre. Count Count (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge (briefly) to Munich Massacre. The man was certainly not notable except in his death. However, he was the only victim, who was neither a Palestinian terrorist nor an athlete. It is hardly appropriate that he should merely appear as an unexplained name in the list of fatalities at the end of the article. We have articles (sometimes) on murder victims, where the article becomes "Death of John Foo" or "Murder of Jane Boo". It might be appropriate to keep the substantive article, but convert it to that format. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Killing of Anton Fliegerbauer as per usual. Note that ther has been INDEPTH analysis of the impact of Fliegerbauer death on German responses to the Massacre (I added this,) and of its impact on Germany-Israel relations and the attitude of German public in the 1970s towards Israel (not yet in article, but some is visible in gScholar search). While Nom is correct that we do not automatically have an article on every victim of a terror attack, we do have many such articles, and keep such articles when, as here, there has been WP:SIGCOV in the months, years and - in this case - decades after the event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective Merge to Munich Massacre. BIO1E situation - nothing here carries much weight divorced from the massacre, and we can grow the massacre a bit. The individual athletes are independently notable under WP:NSPORT, but this individual is not.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there has been scholarly discussion of Fliegerbauer's impact on the public/political response to the Massacre in Germany, a response that some scholars describe as having been shaped by the fact that there was a German who was killed in addition to 11 Israeli Jews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not independent of the massacre itself. Certainly a local police officer killed changed perceptions in the German public - and this has been covered (and this is natural - makes it closer to home) - however this is all still part of the massacre and reactions to it.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sufficient analysis of his killing's impact and there is likely more in-depth biographical material in German sources. Neither VICTEM nor BIO1E are applicable in this case. Both explicitly except individuals associated with significant events where their role/impact can not be adequately discussed within the main event article as well as for people whose involvement is of 'historical significance' demonstrated by 'enduring coverage'. Jbh ^Talk 12:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Actually agree with Icewhiz which is a nice change of pace. The notability guidelines for sports explains why the athletes were independently notable, but the same cannot honestly be said for the policeman. BLP1E is more than applicable for Fliegerbauer; his "notability" is dependent on his death in the massacre and there is no reason (other than perhaps laziness) why said death cannot be mentioned at Munich massacre, where it belongs. SIGCOV, in reality, is with the massacre. Regardless, SIGCOV has never superseded BLP policy, and the fact he was the only victim who wasn't an athlete is irrelevant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Biosystems

AfDs for this article:

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

The latest piece of promotional dreck for this non notable company. Nothing new here about this company. The only reference that does not pre date the last afd is the article by Roberts but that does not even mention this company. When that article mentions Altogen Labs it is not surpisingly talking about Altogen Labs. Different company. A search found nothing good for GNG, just PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - thanks for making this AfD (I didn't think it meet the criteria for speedy). When you say Altogen Labs is a different company, is it really? This looks to me like a case of a company having separate articles for its divisions, which is not appropriate. I think the content should be moved to the Altogen Labs page, and then Altogen Biosystems could just be a redirect. Where are the refs? (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to what? Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already merged to Altogen Labs Where are the refs? (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't merge anything, you created a new article. Natureium (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. Fails NCORP; obvious advertisement. There is nothing encyclopedic here for anyone to learn from. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt This will continue to be a pain until an admin salts all three iterations of this toxic article. 2Joules (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Altogen Labs has been created while this is running, by User:Where are the refs?, and is now up for AfD by User:2Joules at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Labs. Pinging User:Duffbeerforme, the only other person who has !voted here. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 1 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frei Caneca Street

(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 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 South America-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]

Keep - It appears to be an important part of LGBT history in Brazil, similar to that of Christopher Street and Polk Street in the US. The book As ruas de Porto Alegre: Curiosidades ; Como batizar uma rua ; Ruas de muita história has an entire multi-page chapter dedticated to this street. [52] as does the book Ações educativas: vivências com psicodrama na prática pedagógica.[53]--Oakshade (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Oakshade's research. I looked at their first linked book and indeed the chapter starting at page 75 is titled "Frei Caneca" and is about that rua. --Doncram (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a gay-affiliated street in Sao Paulo. For similar AFD about gay-affiliated street in Rio de Janeiro, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rua Farme de Amoedo. --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references used seem to be weak. Two of the references used looks to be dead and the archive version linked is an AOL site. I've had a look at the linked book but unfortunately I can't read Portuguese --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade, and there are also a number of sources on the Portuguese version of wikipedia which would seem to pass our English language WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 08:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prabesh Samrat Baral

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

This was CSD'd in march and has been recreated with still no decent sourcing. Non notable and may need another CSD, and maybe salting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 01:01, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rehoboth Beach Independent Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Routine coverage in local news media can be found at Google news which is not enough to establish global notability. Hitro talk 10:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and only one single source which is the official website. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numista

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

Non-notable website, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:WEB. The PROD was removed by Robert.stefan.m with the rationale that stop removing the page, it's the biggest coin collecting catalogue available out there. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numista is one of the biggest Numismatic catalogs on the interent. This catalog cited as source in many Wikipedia's Numismatics related articles. Altrough, I agree that coverage of 'numista.com' on the internet is not sagnificant, Numismatics is not usually a subject of a buzz on the internet, especially resorces that are not 'english'-native. Numista is not just a website, think of it as of 'Wikipedia of coins', most of Numismatists know about it, some are actively contributing to it, but no one writes about it because, well, everyone know about it and information is public and given for free. Despite that numista.com is mentioned in the book (something that not many websites can be proud of) as one of the major sources of coin values. Website was created in 2007 and since then serves its 85k users. Article 'Numista' has been reviewed by other reviewer who didn't see any reason for article to be nominated for deletion. The reason why article was created in a first place is Numista community discussed on a forum absence of a source of neutral information about Numista, that's why author of current version of the article (me) volonteered my time to create one. Article could potentially draw attention other Numista users who will try to save an article by doing something Mr. Robert.stefan.m did, that's why article need care and help, rather than deletion. I believe with additional information added by other Wikipedia users the article is rather satisfies criteria of 'importance' to be saved. --AndriiKhmelkov (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AndriiKhmelkov (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
@AndriiKhmelkov: As the creator of the article it is reasonable that you think it should be kept, but you must be aware that we have some very strict guidelines such as WP:WEB and general notability guideline which need to be followed and I see no evidence if it passes any of them. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: As 'reviewer' on non-english edition of Wikipedia I'm well aware of rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I made my case and I don't think there is a need for any further comments. To my believe reviewer who initially placed an article for quick-deletion did a poor job researching the subject of the article, at least it had to be put up for discussion first. Let's give an opportunity for other Wikipedia users to leave their opinions. Thanks --AndriiKhmelkov (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? FYI I proposed this article for deletion six hours after it was created and my "before research" (a Google "news" search) brought up only a bunch of passing mention but nothing significantly as required by WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the notability-standards of en-wiki and Ukrainian-wiki vary by a mile or so.So, rather regretably, you're not much aware of the guidelines of en-wiki.Best,∯WBG^converse 06:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like article Sabar Koti, authored by nominator requires a deletion based on WP:MUSIC. Fails most of the criterias of WP:MUSIC, has a size of dictionary entry, and rather an article for regional wiki unfortunately. It's just first article I opened to prove the point, I don't think I need to look anymore. Article Numista is ok article compared to its 'live' peers, and even if Numista fails notability of WP:WEB, 'WP:WEB' is a guideline, not a rule to blindly follow, also wikipedia's rules are full of exceptions. Problem is, user CSS tries to prove he is and was "right", I saw it many times in my Wiki-experience. Numista is used as a source in many articles in en.wiki, it's rather stupid to delete an article about the source itself. In any case, I don't care what happens now, I'm tired to fight burocracy. Just a last bit of advice: don't be biased towards others, Ukrainian-wiki is following the same set of guidelines, and there is no constant superiority is life. --AndriiKhmelkov (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment"-Colnect, which could be considered a similar website, has 17 refences, out of which 10 are links on Colnect itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.98.203 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Any significant coverage of this is probably going to be from the numismatics periodicals. Coin World doesn't appear to have a dedicated article about the site, at least in their searchable online presence, but does cite them as an authority (for example, here). I draw a blank from the online archives of Coins/Numismatic News (they are owned by the same parent company) and COINage. As I'm not an ANA member, I cannot search the archives of Numismatist at all. I don't have a lot of faith in the online archives of several of these periodicals, hence the weakness of my opinion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No real evidence of notability, fails WP:WEB. FITINDIA 19:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several sources are brief mentions in blogs - I do not see substantive coverage for notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails WP:NWEB by a mile or so.A handful of trivial mentions (mostly attributed data) in passing but no significant coverage.∯WBG^converse 06:31, 2 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) 03:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richie (Outasight album)

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

No mention of this album on News Google books, or scholar matches. Fails notability guidelines for album The artist is notable, but this particular album is not Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find a few sources that amount to no more than trivial announcement of the album release. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Hzh (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted.Accesscrawl (talk) 06:44, 25 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 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Its been eight days now since this page taken to afd but till now there is no response from the creater so there is really no chance anytime soon that this article is going to be expanded.Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMAUG

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

Couldn't find much during a WP:BEFORE search. However, I didn't know much of the subject due to the complicated layout and technical terms in the article. I feel as though, even if notable, the article fails WP:TNT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 20 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 09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Garcia de Cuenca

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

Dubiously notable. Three local refs, all deadlinks. I didn't find anything better on a BEFORE search. Article is full of sketchy assertions of Nobel Prize nominations and prophecies from god, none of it verified.

This is a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article, which amusingly is tagged as being written "from a fanatic's point of view". Couldn't agree more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a total lack of sources that are reliable 3rd party ones that show that her actions actually had an impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 21 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 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ;PMC lacks independent sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warmoth Guitars

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. This company exists, though there is little coverage in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the article creator, this is a bit difficult. I'm quietly confident that the sources will be found in time, but it won't be easy because the web is so cluttered with blogs and similar non-reliable and/or primary sources. Warmoth is one of the big two suppliers of mail-order guitar parts worldwide (the other being Stewmac, aka Stewart-MacDonald website https://www.stewmac.com/ and we don't have an article on them either). In many ways they created the industry, and hold a similar position in their field to say Paiste in cymbals or Gibson in guitars. So on the one hand, deleting this sub-stub would be ridiculous, it's most unlikely to fail either GNG or the more detailed guideline for organisations with thorough research. But on the other hand, it currently satisfies the criteria for deletion, there's (sadly) no useful content there, and finding the sources will not be easy. I get 1,200,000 ghits for Warmoth guitar (no rabbit's ears), but sorting through them for reliable secondary sources will take some time... the archives of music trade magazines might be more fruitful perhaps. I get only 752,000 for Collard piano, while Collard and Collard are similarly notable in a similarly small field, see Frederick William Collard (they just came to mind as I've just bought and restored a c1830 example of their work). I note that we don't have articles on Collard and Collard, or on Stewmac. But we should have both, and one on Warmoth too. Andrewa (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I'm like a bloodhound when it comes to finding sources, and after about 15 minutes looking for some--any--reliable secondary sources to support the notability of this article, I felt a bit...well...like my prom date hadn't shown up. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about an hour! Online is unlikely to work IMO. Paper copies of trade magazines are more likely, but more laborious still. Thanks for the ping, and suggestions welcome (or for C&C or Stewmac for that matter... they're all encyclopedic topics).

I did find several online mentions such as https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-199864993.html but they're all behind paywalls. As probably by far the largest manufacturer of Fender copy bodies, I expect they'd have been prominent in this landmark case. That's why I find this difficult... from a reader's and even a theoretical point of view, this should be kept, as the topic is notable and the sources are undoubtedly there. But from a procedural point of view I see no choice but to delete it, as I can't demonstrate these sources and we don't want to open the floodgates for every non-notable organisation that can find one Wikipedian (there are lots of us) to vouch for them to therefore get an article. Suggestions welcome! (Obviously.)

As I tried to say above, no great loss if this is deleted. If I'd known it would remain a sub-stub for so long I would not have bothered creating it. Ideally we'd have a place to archive such sub-stubs with possibilities, similarly to an R with possibilities, but I don't even know where to redirect this. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESign Genie

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

Non-notable company / software. Ref #1 is a blatant advertorial parroting the company's PR slogans. Refs #2 and #3 are self-published, ref #4 is a brief mention in a bloggish non-expert article. A Google search only revealed a few more marketing publications and listings, but no promising independent in-depth coverage required for a notable topic. GermanJoe (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, promotional, poorly-sourced. Basie (talk) 11:20, 2 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Agrawal

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

Non-notable music composer and lyricist. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, nor does the subject seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:COMPOSER. I originally boldly redirected this to Jeena Isi Ka Naam Hai (film) which is the only verifiable claim, but this was undone by the author twice. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:COMPOSER, has not done any notable work till date to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. WP:TOSOON. FITINDIA 05:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of notable work (that sources are concerned with), and also fails WP:COMPOSER for the same reason.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The page is almost entirely a copyright violation of this site. The page curation software will not allow me to nominate this for speedy deletion because it is already at AfD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got round that by nominating it for speedy deletion manually. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 3 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) 04:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balaichak Raja Rammohan Vidyapith

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

Two government database listings aside(which proves that the school exists)...no sources were found. — F R ⁺ 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we just don't have enough source material to base an article on, let alone to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, no significant coverage found, fails GNG. Sam Sailor 08:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a secondary school which is proven to exist. We keep such schools. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not even listed in the Hooghly district#Education section which states there are 408 high schools in the district. If someone wants to make a List of schools in Hooghly district, then that can attract such a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but if not Delete. per above and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 11:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is valid, as per consensus on school outcomes, we keep such articles. Singling out non-anglophone schools for deletion propagates systemic bias.Egaoblai (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources presented are but lists of high schools and directory entries. There is no coverage beyond that to indicate a separate article should be created. So it should go to the list until such significant coverage is presented. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anantara Lawana Koh Samui Resort

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

Article is unreferenced to RS and a BEFORE search finds only fleeting and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Chetsford (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill hotel. Non notable without independent reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 03:59, 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 delete. Spamming for a non-notable person by a bunch of COI sockpuppets Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hext

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

I do not believe being a Deputy Lieutenant and Justice of the Peace for the county of Cornwall is sufficient to provide notability. For example 11 deputy lieutenants of the county were appointed on 24 June 1859, and there are masses of Justices of the Peace. This is one of a number of articles on members of the Staniforth family created recently by an editor with the username NJStaniforth. I believe many of these individuals do not meet WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments - there are a large number of DLs in the UK, and vast numbers of JPs. Notability can't be inherited, so he can't warrant his own article via any family positions. WP:NPOL is probably the closest we have, and that certainly isn't satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man is noted in numerous historical books on British peerage, and is notable in the county for his work with the Stannaries.NJStaniforth (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NJStaniforth and FreebirdBiker: - I couldn't spot anything on him as a peer (seems to have gentry as a family line, but no more that I've seen) and could you post the link to his work with the Stannaries - tin mines aren't my speciality so a pointer would be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep British peerage, from a well known local family in Cornwall. FreebirdBiker (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete He shows up in Burke's Landed Gentry; he was not a peer. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live in St. Austell in Cornwall, nearby where this man was born and he's listed amongst residents of Restormel House, I also feel since he was elected to two seperate positions this should make him at least somewhat notable. CornwallLB (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CornwallLB - firstly, St Austell is amazing, one of my favourite places in the UK. Secondly, the former seems to risk WP:INHERITED, unless he did something notable there. The separate positions I wouldn't say grant any more notability (sort of like weak sources not stacking). Technically he wouldn't have been elected in either DL (appointed by LL, confirmed by Queen) and JP (applied/appointed). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis man is certainly notable in Cornwall, and as already noted, held two positions and was from a prominent Cornish family. WitchfinderHistoric (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Cwmhiraeth about WP:NBIO in the context of this family. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in his own right for holding two positions on behalf of an English county. SheffLad (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: FreebirdBiker, NJStaniforth, CornwallLB, WitchfinderHistoric, and SheffLad are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NJStaniforth.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Any further discussion about merging individual articles can take place elsewhere. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Alabama

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

This will be a group AfD. We have a "Crime in..." article for each of the US states except New Hampshire and Maine. The Crime in Alabama article is typical of all but a few of the states. Statistics from 2008 and 2014, and whether or not capital punishment is applied. Nothing that can't be merged into the main article about the respective state. If these articles aren't going to be updated and maintained, then there's no sense in keeping most of them. Will update this page to include all the others. Home Lander (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the articles. These are generally the worst of the lot, though even the others could use a lot of updating. Home Lander (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This related template shows all the articles, not just the ones in the list above:

Home Lander (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no assertion that these topics are not notable. There is complaint they have not been developed. So tag them, and give notices at state-level wikiprojects. I especially object to ripping out a structure in every state set up for good reason perhaps, perhaps well used in other states, in an AFD just titled about Alabama, that crime editors and state editors will not notice. Note this is just some states...could the examples of the better states be encouraged. Perhaps if they have been tagged for a year, try again. Is this using AFD to try to force cleanup? --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination suggests merging stuff into state articles. Note no actual deletion should take place...at worst there could be mergers/redirects. This does not seem like an effort to improve coverage of these topics in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no desire for deletion is actually stated in nom, AfD is not the place for pure merge requests. Beyond that , state-level crime would certainly seem to be notable, and a failure to be kept up to date is not grounds for deletion. I can't go citing specific policy beyond that before specific grounds for deletion are actually given. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per other !voters and because it may not be appropriate to merge the contents of these articles to the state articles. (Does every state article need to mention whether the state has capital punishment? unclear at best.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Nosebagbear and other voters who said keep. 344917661X (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The proposer suggests merging. One has to ask why they don't just do that. Or at least make a talk page proposal. Laziness comes to mind as an answer. SpinningSpark 16:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are redundant stubs with nothing even worth merging that isn't already elsewhere. Home Lander, I'll endorse a merge if you're going to open that discussion elsewhere though but it's not clear what content there is to do so. Most are short enough you could WP:BOLDly just do it yourself; there's no inherent reason WP needs an article for each one. They could surely redirect to Crime in the United States, which itself links to List of U.S. states by homicide rate and other relevant content. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. No reason given to delete and it can certainly be shown that notability of each topic has been achieved per WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A U.S. state is large enough for crime to be notable, and AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is WP:NODEADLINE and there is significant coverage of crime levels in individual US states. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crime in Alaska, Crime in Oklahoma and Crime in Virginia and Merge the rest. The situation in the AfDd articles sharply differs from stubs of stand-alone subjects. Articles at hand should be viewed as subsidiaries of Crime in the United States and in this particular case often its topical "mains". Each subsidiary article needs to have sufficient information to justify its existence. There is no question of WP:N or WP:NOT. If somebody cares enough these articles can be revisited. In the meantime, when opening a zillion articles rehashing the same information, typically the subsidiary articles fall behind and offer a poor user experience. Or the parent articles might – this is equally bad. The main question here is how to organize information right and represent the best interests of the user. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge the substubs, but expansion would be better. As someone mentioned above, the stub status does not indicate a lack of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ADMIN SNOW query - I realise there is a delete !vote, but we seem to have reached the overwhelming point where all we are getting now are pile-on !votes. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 2 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jamacfarlane (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland

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

Article has very little content and is about a tribunal which has been abolished. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently editing articles to reflect the changes brought in by the The Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. The ASN tribunal transfered into the First-tier tribunal earlier this year, so no longer exists in its own right. I recognise there may be historical interest in keeping the article, but it's a two-line stub and the history of the tribunal can be covered in the page for the new First-tier tribunal. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for embarking on these changes. I agree that the information in the history section of Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland should be in a future Health and Education Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (or part of First-tier Tribunal, or whatever?) and, if you intend copying the text, a {{copied}} template}} could be used on source and target talk pages. Rather that delete this page it would be much better to change it to a redirect to the future page but to do it now would risk speedy deletion. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jamacfarlane’s descriptions are misleading. The article was a stub but had a few short paragraphs of information, with reliable sources, until they were removed by that user with the edit summary of “tribunal abolished”. So seems odd to protest that the article has very little content, having just removed it without any clear explanation. I have restored that information. There is plenty more coverage of the tribunals, relating to activity prior to restructuring of the Tribunals. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can always be merged and redirected to the new article when it's done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I commented previously). Best to keep and later redirect. Thincat (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On reflection, I was perhaps too rash. Drchriswilliams has added more content to the article now, so I am happy to withdraw the nomination. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination and deletion votes from confirmed sockpuppets. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Healey (autism activist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.

This page has clearly been made for self promotion purposes only, the individual is non-notable and as you can see via the talk page he has been involved in paying people to create the page, edit the page and vote on the AfD discussions. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated or encouraged at all as it is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards Iamricednous (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Quoting User:Carrite in last AFD: "After an AfD in 2015 [and another in 2017], result was Keep. Notability is not temporary, nor have community standards changed since then. Stop wasting our time." --Doncram (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps investigate the deletion nominator, are they a sock puppet as nominated this page previously? --Doncram (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can start the sock-puppet investigation I would do it if I could nominate myself. Seems like you have a lot of self interest towards this page were you someone Kevin paid to vote as well? I am not saying anything new. I am just saying what has been done in the past. Iamricednous (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable autism activist. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a place to self promote. FrederickWinchester talk 03:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - This matter was decided in 2015. Community standards have not changed since then. Notability is not temporary. We can't be endlessly relitigating the decisions made at AFD. Carrite (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article in which Healey is the subject, sufficient to meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The two previous AFDs in 2015 and 2017 came to the same conclusion and I don't see that anything has changed. Considering the article's recent history of disruptive deletion-related edits from multiple new accounts, the closing admin should note that the only editors recommending deletion here are new accounts as well. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary. If this page was kept back in 2015, and again in 2017, it should be kept again per previously established consensus. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The individual is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia with there being little no references on the individual. Inightfox (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twistys Treats

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN; significant RS coverage not found. A promotional list created by Twistys.com. The award "Twistys Treat of the Year" is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't host things that pretty much scream WP:ADVERT. It's literally an employee of the month award for a website. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom & Nate - This is nothing more than "Employee of the month", Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women Seeking Women

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For AfDs on pages that are similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitters (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour Solos (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM with no reviews in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 1 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 draftify. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford V Ferrari

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

This seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. Caorongjin (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep it. its starting filming in July. you will regret deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drafity. It is too soon as filming has not yet begun, per WP:NFF, but looks like it will be notable if it does enter main production. BOVINEBOY2008 13:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whats a drafity ? and also what are you gonna do if the movie goes into production in july ? you are gonna waste my work and recreate the page allover again ? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surajvedula: Draftifying an article means moving it from the mainspace (where readers can see it) to the draft space, where it's not visible to ordinary readers, but the existing content of the article is preserved and can still be worked upon. If and when it is determined that it is appropriate for the article to be moved back into mainspace, that can occur. DH85868993 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB has updated the status of the movie to being in pre-production, so I am pretty sure this movie is happening...i don't see the point in blocking this any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this movie even have a release date...so I don't see the point in deleting this page. Here is the link

  ^[1]

You guys allowed once upon a time hollywood movie to have a wikipedia page and you have problem with this ? what is this ? that movie is coming 2 months after this movie. This movie is coming on 28th June and that is coming in august. So I dont think this page needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are judged on their own merit. WP:WHATABOUTX Ifnord (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:Ford V Ferrari and allow immediate restoration once reliable sources have confirmed that principal photography has started, which Surajvedula said without citing any sources is in July. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says:
Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.
The movie still is in pre-production, which means it clearly has not "commenced principal photography", so it should not have its own article.
The article can be moved from the draft namespace back to mainspace once (1) reliable sources have confirmed that principal photography has started and (2) the film has passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is another quote from Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films:
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
Surajvedula (talk · contribs) said above that filming starts in July but has not cited any sources for this. Surajvedula cited the June 22, 2018, article https://www.thewrap.com/christian-bale-matt-damon-60s-ferrari-vs-ford-movie-gets-summer-2019-release-date/ which says:
20th Century Fox has set a summer 2019 release date for its upcoming James Mangold-directed biopic about the 1966 Le Mans race, set to star Matt Damon and Christian Bale. The still-untitled project will hit theaters June 28, 2019.
Based on a true story, the film tracks a heated rivalry between Ford and Ferrari culminating in the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans, the world’s oldest sports car endurance race.
The film is a "still-untitled project" so the eventual name might not be Ford V Ferrari.
Cunard (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 22:28, 26 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) 00:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so the article can easily be readded once principle photography has begun - it's the easiest option for all, rather than a deletion, granting access to primary ed, recreation and resubmission. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears this movie is happening, but per WP:NFF it's still WP:TOOSOON given the amount of unknowns about this. When more information is known for sure, the article can then be re-created. Draftify could work as well. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A MAJOR FILM. IF IT GETS DELETED IT WILL JUST BE BROUGHT BACK LIKE A MONTH LATER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.reed620 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason.reed620:Firstly, please don't use capslocks - coming across as shouting just inclines people to ignore your comment.

Secondly, arguing that things (films, news etc) will cease to have WP:TOOSOON apply to them if given time is a fairly weak argument in most cases. If you could justify why we should wait, for example, 4 days, then that would be fairly reasonable but that isn't your comment. A month is a fairly long amount of time and more importantly, even major films drop out in pre-production. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear Christian bale recently is at miami airport travelling to europe to film the movie. If that is not a confirmation I don't know what is. Look up the link added below. Moreover christian bale is a method actor and feels the need to transform himself for every role he plays in order to give it his all . If you look at stock photos of british racer Ken Miles, he has a thin frame. Look at christian bale images in the below link and he looks thin. Why then would he loose all his weight if this movie is not happening ?

     ^[2]

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

[1] ttps://www.thewrap.com/christian-bale-matt-damon-60s-ferrari-vs-ford-movie-gets-summer-2019-release-date/

[2] ttps://twitter.com/ChristianBaleFY/status/1013990726877708293

[1]

[2]

v t e Crime in the United States by state
States	Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Federal district	Washington, D.C.
Territories	American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands