Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 August 15 August >

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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 00:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of British MPs by seniority[edit]

List of British MPs by seniority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is far from complete, and also it is redundant given that the topic has already been covered. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Lattner[edit]

Tanya Lattner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A passing mention in Business Insider and inclusion on a list of "The 39 most powerful female engineers of 2018" isn't significant coverage.-Ich (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Ich (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ich: There are 2 reliable and independent references. 2 reliable primary references from LLVM. And 2 primary references from Tanya Lattner official public profiles. Care to ellaborate why this isn't significant coverage?[TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 23:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TRANSviada: It's not that Business Insider isn't a reliable publication, but the passing mentions of Tanya don't constitute significant coverage. Looking at the other women in the list article, many of them do not have articles; the ones that do, such as Sylvia Acevedo, Erica Baker, Caitlin Kalinowski, Sandy Carter, Julie Larson-Green, are the subject of substantial other coverage and the articles do not rely solely on their inclusion on the list.-Ich (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)i[reply]
@Ich: Ok, thanks for taking the time to explain. [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. As stated by the nominator, the Business Insider article about programmers and behaviour is a passing mention. The inclusion in a list from Business Insider isn't significant coverage either. The remainder of the sourcing in the article consists of two blog posts from the foundation for which she is president and her Facebook and Linkedin pages. None of those are independent nor are they really reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • idk but keep - @Whpq: The first guideline you cited do not tell anything about multiple realiable sources that aplies to the article. The second says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". So multiple sources are expected, but not required to estabilish notability. About the blog posts, according to Wikipedia guidelines, a "primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". So these sources can be used, as I used them to make "straightfoward, descriptive statements of facts...", and there aren't any statement in that guideline saying this would fall under the "unreliable category". [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 00:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources that are used to verify facts in the article; these sources can prom,ary sources. But these sources are not usable for establishing notability. There is no bright line number of sources that are an automatic pass on notability because the type and depth of coverage is looked at when making a judgement. The coverage as presented, and as best that I could find in my own searches are not much ,ore than passing mentions, so having to sources with shallow coverage is not sufficient to meet the requirement of inclusion in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out your views and taking the time to explain it to me. [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 12:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They have reason. I do care but not willing to argument anymore. [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TRANSviada: I'd support a WP:SOFTDELETE, as I am cognizant of Wikipedia deficient coverage of female engineers and scientists, she has the potential to become notable, and I hate to see hard work going to waste.-Ich (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ich:I'd also support. I think she's already notable, just not have much coverage yet. LLVM is widely used, and she had/has an important role in the project development. But ok, I'm only one and I do not have enough spare time that i'd will to argument about this. I did a pastebin here, so, when she gets more "reliable independent" coverage, anyone can try to improve the article and add it to Wikipedia again. Thanks for the recogniction [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 12:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone in the world has the "potential" to become notable. We create biographical articles for the ones who actually succeed at it. This subject hasn't. Nha Trang Allons! 19:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Daask (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 00:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Siskind[edit]

Amy Siskind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Twitter personality. Has authored one book - a collection of tweets - and founded a non-profit organization, which itself has no WP entry Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not show up in a newspapers search. Does not meet WP:GNG. WCMemail 09:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wee Curry Monster, she gets 2,880 Google News results, 141,000 Google Web results, 21,000 "WP reference" results [1], 48 Google Scholar results, 28 Highbeam results. Just click the links at the top of this page. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • [2] As I said, doesn't show up. Just googling my own name I get 403,000 hits, 488,000 for my wiki nom de plume. I guess that makes me more notable, or it could be just I've been around. WCMemail 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You based your oppose on the fact that she doesn't come up in the long-defunct Google newspaper function, and stated that therefore she failed WP:GNG, which is a competency failure so great the rest of your AfD !votes should probably be examined. Paul Manafort doesn't even come up on a Google newspaper search [3]. And by the way, your Wikipedia username gets 13 Google web results: [4], zero news results. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I based my oppose on her lack of notability as per the nomination. A non-notable Twitter personality. But I've struck the newspapers comment, happy now or do you fancy making another personal attack? WCMemail 07:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: shows plenty in Google news search. Reliable sources have reviewed her book. (But someone, probably not from my side of the pond, needs to start an article on The New Agenda). PamD 15:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment out of process, no notice + nauthor: "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." reviews at washpost; usatoday, phillyinquirer. Psyduck3 (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Has enough reliable sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:AUTHOR because of her new, widely reviewed book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A well-known political activist, with a bestseller book, plenty of RS available, easily meets GNG and ANYBIO. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gamesmasterg9, her book is not "a collection of tweets"; it's a lengthy list of significant abnormal events from each week of the first year since Trump was elected. Siskind was a noted activist for a decade before the book was published. Please do WP:BEFORE next time prior to nominating and article for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A quick google search shows that prior to the 2016 election, her noted activism consisted of providing quotes to the Daily Caller, and a handful of blog posts at the Huffington Post. It is clear now that the article will be kept, but I have no doubt that my AfD proposal was appropriate.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you lack reading comprehension as well as the ability to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Softlavender (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly WP:NPA reminder: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gamesmasterg9 your nomination was spot on, this person doesn't merit an article on notability grounds. Check out which wikiproject the keep votes come from. WCMemail 06:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nominator withdrawn) (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooksville Railroad Depot Museum[edit]

Brooksville Railroad Depot Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, created by a blocked sock, has lacked any sources for the last four years. A BEFORE search on Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no references to "Brooksville Railroad Museum" or "Brooksville Railroad Depot Museum" and only a single, incidental, one-sentence ref to the "Brooksville Train Depot Museum" [5]. A check on the American Alliance of Museum's website indicates this is an unaccredited museum. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hernando Sun, Tampa Bay Times, and the linked website seem to refer to it as "1885 Train Depot Museum." Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect and move to 1885 Train Depot Museum and withdraw AFD as nom. Thanks to Bakazaka, it appears this has coverage under a different name entirely which is both its actual and common name and "Brooksville Railroad Depot Museum" is not actually its name but a description used by the article's creator (i.e. "the railroad museum in Brooksville") which is why it's not showing up in BEFORE. We should probably move it to its actual and common name "1885 Train Depot Museum". Chetsford (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're correct. I've amended above. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The museum's proper name is probably 1885 Train Depot Museum, another possible name under WP:USSTATION is Brooksville station, although the article is primarily about the museum. Former train stations are presumed to be notable. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Former train stations are presumed to be notable. - I'm not familiar with this policy. For my edification, could you wikilink it? Chetsford (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a policy, but rather a common outcome of these discussions; see WP:RAILOUTCOMES. It's based on the theory that any station which existed for more than a decade or two will have received enough coverage to meet the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know - thank you! Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments on notability of museums and train stations. No opinion on naming issue. Bakazaka (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airbrite[edit]

Airbrite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company. Participated in YCombinator and received the normal amount of tech-press coverage there, other refs are about inflammatory comments by a cofounder. The company appears to now be called "Celery". power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is notable since the co-founder has said a lot of controversial comments. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 01:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't been able to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources beyond the two TechCrunch pieces cited in the article, one of which has only a couple of short paragraphs on the company, the other of which deals mostly with a product (called Celery but apparently unrelated to Celery (software)) rather than the company behind it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources are too indiscriminate to count towards notability. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: references fail the criteria for establishing notability, either failing ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 15:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopinathpur, Bangladesh[edit]

Gopinathpur, Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable place again sounds like a blog post. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and copyedit thoroughly, adding references if any can be found. All villages are notable. I added {{Infobox settlement}} and removed some personal comments, but more work will have to be done. This appears to be the creator's first article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Eastmain. Villages are indeed always notable by long standing consensus which has always been followed. James500 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND criterium 1. gidonb (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND, seems to be a verified village. SportingFlyer talk 10:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 00:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Dray[edit]

Philippe Dray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I dont know what or who this is, I tried to do revison history and still i couldnt find any reliable sources that are verifiable that he is a French chef. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent vandalism aside, search also finds some passing mentions in reviews of Plaisir [6], and some PR-heavy coverage in niche publications of subject's duty free retail venture [7] [8] but it doesn't add up to significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a run of the mill chef, his only allegation of notability being catering for a bunch of famous celebrities. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - came across this article and also can't find much to say he's a "celebrity chef." The article reads like it may have been written by Philippe himself, using phrases like "strives to do x" and describing what he does as an "art". The article also contains information that doesn't appear to come from any source (ie. could only come from somebody who personally knows him) such as that his grandmother had a bakery. Wholeheartedly recommend it's speedy deletion. DeliriousWolf (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No reliable sources turn up through the various gSearches. Barely passing mention of his connection with the Los Angeles-area bakery does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | Who, me? 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the above contributors that it Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. the Promo sources cant be used to establish WP:SIGCOV. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per the arguments that the coverage (while RS) fails our primary/independent criteria for GNG. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge F. Zeballos[edit]

Jorge F. Zeballos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Willthacheerleader18: Can you provide even one reliable source that provides independent significant coverage about the subject? I have found none after several searches. North America1000 12:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is really not enough to say that a subject "seems" notable enough. On English Wikipedia, notability for subjects whom are not presumed notable by various notability guidelines must have had received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. "Seeming" notable enough does not mean that the subject is actually notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 20:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first two sources under references are both well written enough and indepdent enough of the subject to pass any reasonable test of reliability. Zebellos has no direct control over the creation of LDS sources. I can find Catholic bishops with way less sourcing, but the clear consensus is all Catholic Bishops are notable. General Authority Seventies of the LDS Church are at least at an equivalent level. Since the subject is from Chile, unless people have demonstrated indepth study of Chilean sources, then the argument to delete is weak. This bascially is built on a notion that LDS related sources cannot support LDS subjects, which is an absurdly over broad blackout method. I am not sure exactly what this source is but I found this Spanish source [9] that gives a full bio of Zeballos. I cannot say how much it fulfills our reliability test. I also have added another source to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I understand this link [10] it is within the normal Deseret News and not the Church News, and shows a general view of this paper that readers feel a desire to read reports on major addresses by Zeballos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The first two sources under references in the article are published by Ensign, which is an official periodical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Ensign is a primary source that does not serve to establish notability at all. Biblicomentarios.com is a blog run by a person named Pablo Marichal Catalán, and is not a reliable source. The Deseret News source listed above consists almost entirely of quotes from the subject, with very little information about the subject, and is essentially an editorial written by an unnamed person, as the article does not even have a byline. This source does not provide significant coverage. North America1000 20:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The members of the Quorum of the Twelve rely heavily upon the members of the Seventy for assistance as they minister worldwide. Zeballos will remain a general authority of the Church until his 70th birthday, which means he will be in the public eye of Church membership between now and then. And while the Deseret News does publish and distribute the LDS Church News, the staffs of the two newspapers are separate and distinct in purpose and function. The office of Seventy could be said to be comparable to that of Catholic bishops, priests, or cardinals, as their ministry has a similar scope in terms of authority and responsibility. While there may be a lack of independent sourcing for Zeballos, that should pale in comparison to the fact that his role as a leader of the Church is significant, and that those who share the office of seventy are second only to the apostles. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Subjects that the LDS church deems to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards, and Mormon subjects are not granted presumed notability in any of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. North America1000 20:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a source review. Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to qualify an article? See also WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." North America1000 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the Notes section

Sources in the References section

Sources listed above in this AfD discussion

  • Biblicomentarios – A blog published by "Juan Pablo Marichal Catalán (JPMarichal)" – Not a reliable source
  • Deseret News – Consists of quotes the subject has stated. There's no biographical information about the subject here, just a bunch of quotes and some unknown person's editorial interpretation of those quotes. The article does not even have a byline. Also, this does not constitute significant coverage. When omitting quotes from the subject, content written about him consists of four sentences. This is not in-depth coverage.
  • Delete or Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Even religious organizations and members have to pass WP:GNG. Church sources are absolutely usable for finding good information about the subject if notability is already established. But WP:IIS is clear about independence. Coverage in official LDS publications such as Church News or the Ensign does not establish notability for church leaders, any more than an in-house magazine for a large corporation covering the appointment of a vice-president would establish notability for that corporate employee. The comparisons to Catholic bishops are inaccurate. The Catholic Church has over a billion adherents worldwide vs. about 16 million for LDS. A more accurate comparison would be between LDS and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And even Catholic bishops are not automatically notable, though AfD discussions typically find they meet the notability guidelines, according to WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. Of course it is possible that Wikipedia guidelines are biased against denominations whose leaders do not get significant attention outside the church. One alternative would be to redirect the individual article to the higher-level entity that is already accepted as notable, and discuss the individual there. For this article that would mean a redirect to Seventy (LDS Church), which I would also support, but it looks like the subject is not currently mentioned as one of the noteworthy members in that article. Bakazaka (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not for a minute believe that the treatment of LDS general authorities is anything like the treatment given to articles on Roman Catholic bishops. Here is an example of what probably the majority of articles on Roman Catholic Bishops are like Christopher Shaman Abba. Now tell me that the article on Jorge F. Zeballos is anything other than several times superior to that article. Show me the last time any Catholic bishop article was nominated for deletion. Then tell me this process is in any way fair or balanced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The using of ownership to disqualify well-researched, balanced articles on an individual seems to be a way to wipe out articles on people who have in fact received significant coverage. A fair assessment of the tone and creation methods of the biographies published for new general authorities in especially the Church News would should them to be both indepth enough and indepdent of the subject enough in their formulation that they would qualify as indepdent sources. University newspapers are allowed as sources. The only thing they are generally banned from is showing notability of university grads. That is not what it is being used for here. The broad brush of disqualifying sources is just being used too broadly here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A source can be reliable in a narrow area but not independent and therefore not a usable source for determining notability or significant coverage. That is the situation with Church News and Ensign. They are probably reliable sources for one perspective on LDS members, organizations, and issues of concern. They can be reliable sources for factual data, like biographical details or sermon contents or the timing of church announcements or the church's official position on someone or something. But Church News and Ensign are not independent per WP:IIS. The point of WP:IIS is to make sure independent sources confirm the notability of article subjects. That should be possible for notable individuals. If it isn't possible, then that means reconsidering the subject's notability under a different policy, not changing the definition of an independent source. Bakazaka (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LDS leaders have become somewhat of a paradox as far as Wikipedia is concerned, which is especially true for general authority seventies. The fact is, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, the only reason they are notable is because of their service as high-ranking leaders in a Church whose membership is 16+ million strong. If these men (and women) were not serving in these general capacities on a global level, then they would merely be among the lay membership of the Church, which would make them individuals that would certainly otherwise not be notable. But the fact that they are called to so serve, and often do so through extensive worldwide travel and other assignments through which they minister to the global membership of the Church. Therein lies the difficulty. Because they may be nothing special or significant in the eyes of the world outside the Church, there is insufficient coverage in sources that are not directly related to the Church. With that in mind, I have been invited previously to request that some kind of exception to Wikipedia policy might be enacted for the purpose of establishing notability without needing sources unrelated to the Church, which, as I said, are sparse at best. But wherever I have been referred, I have inevitably been referred elsewhere, and it is always the insufficient coverage that becomes an obstacle. The question is, if insufficient coverage is sufficient enough grounds to propose an article for deletion, where is the line drawn? There are certainly a number of other articles related to the Church and its' leaders which, by that metric, would be subjected to deletion. That is why it gets discouraging and a little aggravating for me to participate in such discussions. As a Wikipedia editor, I know that regulations are meant to be followed if an exception to them cannot reasonably be made. But as a member of the Church who recognizes how significant the service of such individuals is to the welfare of the Church and its' members on a day-to-day basis, I do sometimes wonder if there is anything more that can be done on my end to conclusively establish the notability of such leaders. If any of you have any suggestions in that regard, above and beyond what I have already done, I would welcome the chance to hear those. Thanks.--Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the oddest consequences of Wikipedia policy is that a person or organization can do good and difficult and interesting things (and/or bad, easy, and horrible things) but not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, even if their work affects millions. This is as true for, say, scientists at the frontier of research, or developers who write the safety software for nuclear facilities, or engineers who fly around the world keeping production lines running, as it is for church leaders. Some LDS leaders and members have clearly met the requirements to be notable under Wikipedia guidelines, so the answer to "how do we establish the notability of church leaders" is already known. Being diligent about including those who are notable under Wikipedia's policies seems like the right response, so no one who is notable is left out. This article's subject does not meet those requirements, but others might. Bakazaka (talk) 04:34, 8 August 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) 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, because there is no guideline or policy that allows for presumed notability for Mormon subjects. Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. I really beat the bushes on this one, in Spanish and English. I did find an additional mention in Deseret, he attended the "dedication of the Cordoba, Argentina Temple", Swensen, Jason. Deseret News, 24 May 2015. But it's just not enough. Except for Deseret, all references are Church publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Daask (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per NorthAmerica, Daask, and E.M.Gregory arguments. Even if we were to apply to the LDS folks the catholic WP:NBISHOP essay, the GNG is still not satisfied by independent reliable sources. I really like Jgstokes argument of how some policies may have to change (I have certain personal views for instance, and would love to make all bishops inherently notable), but the current policy does not allow us to make an exception. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of shopping malls in India#Kerala. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix talk 02:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Square Kochi[edit]

Centre Square Kochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mall. Page is largely unreferenced and fails WP:YELLOWPAGES. Correct outcome is probably Delete and redirect to List of shopping malls in India#Kerala. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Barkeep49 @User:onel5969 - What do you mean by non-notable mall & page is unreferenced? It's the second largest mall in Kochi and is much bigger and more notable than most of the malls listed in List of shopping malls in India. So what's with the bias? Moreover all the statements made on the page is already cited with credible references including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Please show me a single statement in the article which is unreferenced. There are hundreds of articles of less significant malls with not enough references. Shady59 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shady59: When nominated the features and location sections were unreferenced. You've now added a for the list of features. By non-notable I mean it doesn't pass Wikipedia's definition of notable. Article continues to lack (and my WP:BEFORE suggests that it will be hard to find) multiple significant independent reliable secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what Barkeep49 said. And WP:OSE is not a valid argument in this case. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Barkeep49 @User:onel5969 The only thing I added since was the reference to the features. The others were already there. You need to check the revision history. And of course WP:OSE matter here, since the article is clearly fully referenced and removing it would be a plain bias on WP:N. If this article fails WP:N, then more than half of the articles in Lists of shopping malls would fail WP:N desperately. And moreover, WP:N too is clearly subjective. It just needs WP:NRV and the article passes that.
The mall itself was the subject of discussion in Kerala last year when an accident happened in the lift leading to the multiplex and the Kerala Fire And Rescue Services ordered the mall authorities to temporarily shutdown the multiplex. There was a legal fight going on with mall authorities and the Kerala Fire And Rescue Services that even the District Collector came to the scene and the High Court of Kerala had to intervene. It was all over the news at that time. I'm preparing the write-up in order to add all those to the article. Shady59 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to reconsider based on new sources. I will point out a crucial quote from WP:NRV there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (emphasis mine). This is what I am suggesting it lacks (and a standard it can't meet). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 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) 20:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter principle. Clear consensus to not keep. Less clear whether to delete, redirect, or merge. WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP argue for one of the later, but still unclear what the correct target is. I'm going with Peter principle, but feel free to discuss alternates on the talk page and/or be WP:BOLD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Situational Incompetence[edit]

Situational Incompetence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An essay on a non-notable neologism. The term "situational incompetence" is only used in an IT context in a recent paper by Darryl Carlton. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, strange that article does not mention the Peter principle. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:CHEAP to the Peter principle. They are the exact same thing. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Incompetence, which is explicitly needing more material to develop as a broad concept article. The word situational doesn't add much to this because incompetence naturally depends on the situation. The Peter Principle just refers to a particular situation – promotion – and there are many more situations to cover. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 7 August 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) 20:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merits of a move can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix talk 02:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctive Unit Insignia - Indian Army[edit]

Distinctive Unit Insignia - Indian Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little information about the topic and really does not have WP:GNG to have a page of it's own. Might be better off to take the image and add them to the relevant associated pages. For example, List of regiments of the Indian Army, Indian Army Armoured Corps and so on. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain below. Merge with List of regiments of the Indian Army as a valid WP:ATD --DBigXray 21:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article could probably be substantially expanded. See the article about Distinctive unit insignia of the United States Army, which appears to have significantly fewer soldiers that the Indian Army does. Our main source of information about military insignia from any country tends to be the military itself rather than secondary sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. Meets NLIST and GNG - as would insignia of most forces. Sourcing should be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, but renamed to Cap badges of the Indian Army. This would appear to be the name actually used for these particular badges, as it is in the British Army. "Distinctive unit insignia" sounds very American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Ashok (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Eastmain and Icewhiz: This argument seems that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are major differences between Distinctive unit insignia for United States Army and this page and each page should be evaluated with it's own merit. The first major issue is that unlike the US Army which has a dedicated web-page to military heraldry, complete with associated history and has had much scholarly coverage on it, the Indian Army has very little. Most Indian Armed Forces heraldry related images on Wikipedia cannot be added to that page since they are NFCC (Example:File:Brigade_of_the_Guards_Insignia.gif). This arises out of the fact that though we have an approval from the IA to now publish images to Commons, there is little heraldry information (text or images) on their website. Sure a page like that can exist but as of now we do not have enough references or images to create a page. I am of the opinion that there are alternate pages where some of these images (non NFCC ones) can be accommodated until we have enough to merit a pages of it's own. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamgerber80, the topic of the debate is whether the topic is notable or not. You can argue on WP:NFC only after addressing the elephant in the room. If the topic is notable, which clearly to me it is, an article with even 1 image is acceptable. That said, no one stops any editor from also copying the images from the above article to List of regiments of the Indian Army as long as the copyright policies are justified. I suggest you to withdraw the nomination.--DBigXray 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DBigXray: I am happy to withdraw this nomination if anybody can even add a single decent reference to that article. It currently has a reference from scoopwhoop which is WP:TABLOID and a possibly copied from Wikipedia. The second is about UN Peacekeepers in general and does not even make a single mention of the Indian Army. Sure, an article with even a single image is acceptable, but we do need some references to back this up. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indian army cap badges certainly satisfy GNG and LISTN. A search for "indian army"+"cap badges" in GBooks confirms this. The page should be moved, as Necrothesp correctly points out. James500 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC) While we are at it, we need a main article for uniforms of the Indian army generally, as we lack such an article. James500 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ultra high-net-worth individuals[edit]

List of ultra high-net-worth individuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An impossible-to-maintain and excessive list. Recently created by Prisencolin after a similar (and also recently created) category was proposed for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. $30 million net worth covers a huge number of the rich and not so famous. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearian: How do you know that? Besides, nobody said that $30 mil is a notability guideline, this list still conforms to WP:NLIST.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prisencolin I know that from personal experience and from being an educated person up to date with economic news. Due to inflated real estate prices, high oil prices, the Trump tax cut favoring the wealthy, stock buy-backs, and multiple stock market bubbles today, there are thousands of people who have $30 Million net worth or more, which is the "standard" in this list, the vast majority of whom are not notable. I'm middle-class yet I know lots of wealthy people, some of whom have been my clients. (I'm the rare honest lawyer who has little wealth.) There are many ordinary people who have that kind of property and are totally unknowns - people who have done nothing with their lives except to be born into wealth, or win the lottery, or who "marry up". As Balsac said, many a great fortune is the result of a crime, or to that effect. Based on past discussions at WP:AfD, and particularly by DGG, one has to be a Billionare (*with a capital B) to be automaticallty notable merely for one's wealth. Therefore, this list makes no sense. 12:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SALAT, specifically "too general or too broad in scope". Ultra high-net-worth individual claims 226,450 people qualify! Billionaires make manageable lists by wealth. $30 million is chump change, comparatively speaking. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely broad and bordering unenyclopedic. The list in and itself shows why it is not notable since by its standard it will contain huge number of non notable people, way more than the notable ones. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SemiHypercube ✎ 18:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeezy 700 Waverunner[edit]

Yeezy 700 Waverunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable shoe, see Dad shoes. WP:NOT John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.It's about 3mm from me threshold for G11, so don;t be surprised if someone does G11 it. (It reads like copy from a J Peterman catalog.)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had already CSD WP:G11-ed it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: I was just about to say that. SemiHypercube ✎ 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: And I came this close (holds fingers 3mm apart) to pushing the delete button. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:G11 and WP:A11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dad shoes[edit]

Dad shoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. We are not here to report on the latest fashion trends. Between the username and the content created, I highly suspect we have a case of WP:UPE here John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure fashion trend wannabes have no place in an encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)d[reply]
  • Delete as per above. WP:G11 and WP:A11 tagged. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • <<ec>>Delete not notable and very G11ish. already so tagged, but is by some quirk it gets untagged. . . . -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be a strong consensus that the article satisfies notability by being beyond a "standard" US execution, with a particular focus on the political and novelty issues, with the NOTNEWS criteria not being met. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Carey Dean Moore[edit]

Execution of Carey Dean Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a news subject, not an encyclopedia subject. WP:NOTNEWS John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG; worldwide and extensive coverage of the event in WP:RS, described as historic etc. by several sources. --Tataral (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm sympathetic to the idea that this might not have lasting notability given coverage and claims of being unusual in the drugs used there seems to be enough to suggest that WP:NOTNEWS is not correctly invoked here and should be kept since it does pass GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and there are over 12 independent reliable sources cited within the article. Vwanweb (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reworking. first execution using this method in the state - political issue since legislative attempt to ban the death penalty in the state in 2015 -- Callinus (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by virtue of being pioneer one, it received great attention and there are clearly many reliable sources discussing the execution and the surrounding events not only in routine news report. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of schools in Chicago Public Schools. Strictly speaking, SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't apply any more anyway (though it's an incessantly re-litigated issue), however as was pointed out it wouldn't apply to elementary schools in any case. Strong consensus is met that there aren't sufficient sources with depth to prove more than existence, and thus a redirect is justified. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Gage Peterson Elementary School[edit]

Mary Gage Peterson Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES there is no inherent notability for elementary schools. The sources do not seem to establish GNG, as they are largely (ed.) not RS (e.g. PR Newswire, Vimeo), or not WP:INDEPENDENT (the school's own website). There are a handful of RS sources (e.g. NBC Chicago affiliate), however, these are almost entirely incidental, fleeting mentions. Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a few hits on google news, but all amount to brief mentions that don't pass as 'significant'. That being said, there are some sources in the article that look ok, for example, looking at this one: [11] (a fixed URL for an archived source already in the article), I'm seeing this one as a good article from a reliable source with what appears to be a decent editorial team. The article itself seems to have a lot of good and useful information about staff, alumni, etc, and seems to be written fairly neutrally and it would be a shame to lose this info. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff comes up if you take the 'mary gage' bit off the name and tweak the search a bit [12]. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In spirit, I agree that it's not good to lose information. That said, the useful information in the article seems to principally come from the school's own website so would be preserved following deletion, just not on WP. Chetsford (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: That's fair, I'm not saying keep, somewhere in the middle at the moment, but just wanted to bring this stuff up that I found in the search. I also just want to point out that there is no such thing as 'inherent notability' and that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an SNG that creates a 'presumption' of notability (per the RfC linked there). You are however correct that elementary schools have never had nay support for presumption of notability. Also, in your nomination you say "as they are largely RS", but it is clear you mean "as they are largely not RS", you might want to fix that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for the catch! Chetsford (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a specific outcome has emerged. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page. North America1000 00:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stasis (fiction)[edit]

Stasis (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CONTENTFORK of Suspended animation in fiction. Entirely WP:OR save for one primary, not secondary source. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge into Suspended animation in fiction; no need for two articles on the same concept, and this one doesn't appear to be grounded in any sources. Honestly, both of the articles are pretty poorly sourced, and are mostly a list of times stasis/suspended animation appears in fiction, but there are at least secondary sources for the latter. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stasis fields are not the same as suspended animation. For example, they can be used to hold objects not people. Anyway, it's easy to find sources such as this or the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. Suspending time and suspending biological processes are not the same thing as far as I can see. James500 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.∯WBGconverse 12:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson - the CONTENTFORK argument is clearly unreasonable, given the multiple distinct uses stasis field has (not merely "suspended animation for objects"), and provided sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems that there is a consensus that the additional sourcing and content satisfies notability requirements (as well as collateral CSD concerns). With thanks to @Megalibrarygirl: for her rescue work. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Bernadine[edit]

Coral Bernadine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable artist. I did some searching, but all I could find was either cursory coverage, posts on social media, and one minor local-interest piece. No significant discussion of the artist or her impact.

I almost nominated this for CSD under A7, but the fact that the author linked a few sources pointed to the fact that they were at least trying to claim Bernadine's notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as WP:A1 and WP:A7 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to disagree on the WP:A1 - A1 is for when there's no context given to identify the subject, and the article clearly says who the subject is. But I'm definitely behind an A7 deletion since I'm not the only person who thinks this doesn't claim notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it didn't really say who the subject is and why is she notable. All the article says is that she's born in 1940. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication she passes any of the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to be a very well known artist in Barbados with over a 40 year career in the arts. She painted a mural in the West wing of parliament, planned their 50th anniversary of independence art exhibition where she presented the Prime minister with a portrait and more. There's good coverage over time in different sources. Caribbean bios are normally difficult to source since a lot of info seems to be offline, but here we have good coverage of her from 2011 on. I cleaned up the article and added the sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to sources identified and added by Megalibrarygirl. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Megalibrarygirl. I added one more source. Pinging @Heathart, Aliceba, and Shanluan: for content area expertise. --Theredproject (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a case of WP:Heymann. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per a review of available sources, meets WP:BASIC. North America1000 07:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Playdom. User:Czar noted, rename the redirect per the naming conventions, but didn't give specifics; I'll leave it to him to follow up with any required rename. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorority Life (online game)[edit]

Sorority Life (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite a hard thing to do a before search for (I searched for sorority life, and came up with a load of campuses, and searched for Sorority life video game, which was much the same), but the included references don't scream notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why Sorority Life is notable in gaming history:

  • It was designed by an historically important game creator, Steve Meretzky.
  • It represents a career milestone in Meretzky's shift from text adventures to designing "casual" online games.
  • It had millions of regular users at its peak, at a time (2008-2010) when that was somewhat unusual for games hosted on social media platforms.
  • It was also notable in the history of "casual" gaming itself, as the players were mostly women over the age of 35; this was still seen as unusual and remarkable at the time.

There are probably other reasons, but that's what I came up with just now off the top of my head. – skoosh (háblame) 17:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I found five distinct mentions of the Sorority Life game on the New York Times website in 2009 and 2010:

"There is even a take on the same concept called Sorority Life. You build up your player by hosting social events. Instead of arming weapons, you add accessories and outfits. “The results of an attack will be calculated based on how many sisters you have in your sorority, and what they are wearing,” the game says. For me, though, the kicker was seeing that a number of my friends who are 30-something professional women in real life — consultants, real estate brokers — had at least tried Sorority Life and no other game on Facebook. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/arts/television/11facebook.html

"Players of the games have competitive reasons to buy, too. Wendy Pickering of Columbus, Ohio, plays Sorority Life, a game in which players create and dress groups of co-eds, and then, rather violently, pit them against one another until the most glamorous house wins. She discovered very quickly, she said, that she would be trounced in every showdown if she didn’t have enough fashionable items." https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/technology/internet/07virtual.html

"Playdom is one of a cluster of tech start-ups that make simple online games and sell virtual goods — like a $2.50 outfit for a character in Playdom’s Sorority Life, in which players shop, party and go to the spa. Such companies have popped by piggybacking on fast-growing social networks like Facebook." https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/disney-purchases-playdom-a-social-game-start-up/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/technology/28disney.html

"So when I heard a few weeks ago that the Walt Disney Company had agreed to acquire Playdom, maker of the popular Facebook game Sorority Life, in a deal worth up to $763.2 million, I had to check it out. As the online teaser says: 'Sorority Life has the hottest fashions and coolest cliques. Play the game all the girls are talking about!'" https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/arts/television/16playdom.html

"Virtual goods include items that people buy on popular Facebook games like FarmVille, Mafia Wars or Sorority Life, as well as others bought on mobile games and virtual worlds. Last year, the market for virtual goods on Facebook was $835 million, and it was the fastest growing portion of the virtual goods market." https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/virtual-goods-expected-to-grow-by-40-percent-next-year-study-says/

This was not just a fly-by-night operation, but an app that the United States paper of record cited as an example of a popular Facebook game, alongside FarmVille and Mafia Wars, and mentioned repeatedly in articles about its publisher, as well as about social-media games and virtual goods in general. I believe this speaks satisfactorily to the question of its notability. – skoosh (háblame) 18:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The CSE gives a handful, all to Gamasutra, none of them significant. This TNYT article is a significant treatment. The others above aren't really significant. I tend toward delete. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching for "Sorority Life" Playdom yields about fifty hits, rather than two. In any case, we've got a sort of mini-review in the NYT, a couple of paragraphs in two other NYT articles, a more extensive treatment in Jezebel, and an article by the game designer in the trade publication Casual Connect (also cited in the Hodj 'n' Podj article). This appears to satisfy WP:GNG, and there may be more sources out there, waiting to be discovered. – skoosh (háblame) 17:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Playdom. Much of the coverage, such as the New York Times article sites, is about the company, its corporate ownership/structure, and its games in general, with only a small part of the article devoted to Sorority Life. There are enough references for a brief account of the game, but based on the length of the sources and the length of the article, a merge seems sufficient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's a little unclear whether a couple of the comments indicate pure research or also !votes. There is also a delete/merge dispute, hence a relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Playdom. The coverage is scarce and the list of passing mentions above do not provide enough info to write an article that does justice to this topic. Cover the game in a summary style section in the parent article. Also rename the redirect per the naming conventions. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 17:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, there's also this presentation from GDC 2012 by one of the game designers later assigned to the project, laying out and explaining the reasoning behind various aspects of the game in depth. Two different articles in Casual Connect (Summer 2010, pp. 15, 75) use "Sorority Life" as an example in discussions of social game design. If someone (maybe me) incorporates this information into the article, would it then work on its own? What further additions or changes would need to be made? I started this article and marked it as a stub to encourage later users to come and flesh it out. I doubt that would happen if it were merged into the Playdom article; it certainly won't happen if it were deleted. skoosh (háblame) 17:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable game for its time, with millions of users-- and part of the reason that Disney purchased the company Playdom for $768Million in 2010. The game was the subject of a substantive NYT review. --LeflymanTalk 17:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Playdom – this game has received some coverage, and per a source review could be interpreted as borderline notable relative to Wikipedia's notability standards. Merging, as per WP:ATD-M, is in order, as it will preserve encyclopedic content about the topic and serve to expand the suggested merge target article, which presently only has simple listings of the game. North America1000 07:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of the FA Cup. This is not an easy close. It appears to be a notable topic, but the discussion has brought forth that the article fails WP:V and a solution has not been found to rectify this. The redirect route seems to best match overall consensus, and I am not deleting the content from history, as it might prove useful should proper sourcing be found. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harrow Chequers F.C.[edit]

Harrow Chequers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football club that was active in the very early years of the sport (1860s/70s) but about whom almost nothing is recorded. They entered the FA Cup three times but in each case withdrew before their first match so never actually played a game in the competition. The article claims that the club "played an important part in English football in the 19th century" but this is unsourced and there is no evidence that the club had any particularly significant role in the early years of the sport. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Hard one to work out, fchd.info has three recorded FA Cup fixtures, and the guardian mentions them being scratched? Not much else on the internet, unless someone has an old book! Govvy (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's unsourced and fluffy so I'm currently a delete without prejudice of recreation. That being said, I did find a source from [13]: 'Harrow Chequers Crystal Palace 15-a-side match', Bell's Life, 30 Dec. 1865, p. 6. The very first FA Cup Final goalscorer was pseudonymed AH Chequer after the club [14], and produced an early international [15]. May be in Victorian historical football books. Not convinced, but it's not an impossible battle. SportingFlyer talk 01:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will note that this one is somewhat difficult, as they appear to have been more of a successful team 100 years ago than more recently (sources from a time when they were notable, if they were ever notable, are going to be hard to find). [[16]] seems to indicate that they never fielded a team in the FA cup, which is contrary to the rather promotional claims made in the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all of the above comments match my findings which were that the club definitely existed, played some matches, and some of their players can be identified and had other achievements not necessarily related to this club. I don't think any of that satisfies notability requirements....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it could satisfy notability requirements, but it would require historical research - certainly, the article as it stands (completely unsourced) should be deleted. I can't even WP:V the home ground. If you look here the club proposed a number of amendments to the rules [17] with a news article here: [18]. That's pretty clearly trivial coverage, but it gives hope there's coverage in very old newspapers. SportingFlyer talk 22:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also possible they've been discussed in a football reference book such as one of these: [19]
  • I endorse the redirect above as it's a valid search term, and possibly notable if historical sources are found. SportingFlyer talk 06:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article needs sources, and it's difficult finding good significant coverage of the team, but they were clearly notable (if not by our standards) for influencing some of the rules of the game, and there's enough there to write a synthesis article of them - the question in my mind, are there sources from the 1860s and 1870s which would have significant coverage of this team? What are the odds of them existing? SportingFlyer talk 01:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unquestionably an "old giant" such as the Harrow Chequers, as Fores's Sporting Notes called the team in 1892[20], is notable. This could take some work, but let's give it a go!--Milowent • hasspoken 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is no consensus to delete, but there is also no consensus on whether this article should be a disambiguation page, or a broad-concept article. Please discuss the latter on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial cell[edit]

Interstitial cell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT this page is purely definitional. Should be deleted in favour of the wiktionary page Tom (LT) (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable topic with significant literature on the subject. Should be expanded rather than deleted. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tend to agree with the previous !vote. Stubs can look like dictionary definitions, but when there's room to expand (as there is here), and when the topic is a legitimate one that people would look for in an encyclopedia (as is the case here), keeping the stub is the way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of interstitial cells, per FourViolas below. I think it's important that we offer the reader a clear and simple explanation of this term, because I couldn't find one in the first page of Google results. I'm not sure the list, per se, will be of much use to anyone but I am sure many readers will find the explanation useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list per User:FourViolas below. I'd like the new list article to begin with a lay-reader-friendly paraphrase of Sanders et al's definition quoted below by FourViolas: "... a morphological term denoting a variety of cells of differing origins and phenotypes occupying spaces within the interstitium between the cells most prominent in defining a given tissue." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Interstitial" simply means "in the space between". If we keep this we may as well have articles called "deeper cells" and "bigger cells". It's not a thing. You use it when you're talking about one type or group of cells and want to refer to any cells that lie between those cells. We have an article on "nation" but, for good reason, we don't have one on "interstitial nations: nations that lie between other nations." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Interstitial" is not a scientific term per se and thereby difficult to see how it can be expanded or the utility in doing so. Cells that are interstitial can sometimes be found in other areas -- macrophages can also be within blood vessels, the lymphatic system and tissues proper. A similar spatial term, "caudal", does not have its own wikipage, but exists as a definition on Anatomical terms of location. Both terms are on wiktionary, but the interstitial entry should be updated to include a biological definition. Also, a conduit page for Interstitial already exists with the wiktionary link. Skingski (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky On the one hand, the concept of an interstitial cell is so generic that there is really nothing to say about it that is not bound up with a specific use (in which case the coverage should be there, not here) - i.e., if the list of examples is removed, there is nothing to state save the one-sentence defininition. The term per se can't really be expanded on further. This would suggest deletion. - On the other hand, it's very frequently used in composites and a valid search term, so a WP search sould lead somewhere. But no individual use can be claimed to represent the primary meaning, so I don't see where a redirect should lead. - Feeling a bit stumped here... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considered that, but not great either - it's a specific use on its own, and many uses have nothing to do with it. See for example the interstitial cells in the pineal gland - these have nothing to do with the interstitium, being merely located between instances of the "main" cell type of the organ. - Still, maybe one could make an argument for a good terminological connection and hence use it as a compromise redirect target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i sort of understand why somebody might want to see all the kinds of cells that are between things. this could ~maybe~ be a list article, but I don't much care for list articles. Could better be a category. Or maybe a disambig page? Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may not be an exactly defined biological topic, but it is a frequently used term with sources available. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting both because of at least partial balance, but also because there has been various discussion as to potential redirects etc
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Saw this when it first was listed, but I was pretty split myself. I'm in line with Skingski and Elmidae's thoughts though. In the end, it's only describing where the cell is. It can be relevant in specific articles as a term, but the qualifier doesn't really confer notability here. I'm not really seeing a great redirect though, and I don't really foresee any great loss in just deleting it either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every adjective-noun pair is not notable simply because it is often found in combination. It may be a good Category name, but without any unifying characteristic other than being found within what is itself not a uniform tissue, there is nothing else to say than that interstitial cells are cells, and they are in an interstitium, and that doesn't cut it. Agricolae (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of interstitial cells, with notability of the latter given by the following sources:
  • Radu, Beatrice; et al. (2017-02-13). "Calcium Signaling in Interstitial Cells: Focus on Telocytes". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 18 (2). MDPI AG: 397. doi:10.3390/ijms18020397. ISSN 1422-0067. PMC 5343932. PMID 28208829.
"Interstitial cells are defined as cells pertaining to or situated between parts or in the interspaces of a tissue. These cells are located in the connective tissue and under the umbrella of this terminology we find reunited cells such as the interstitial cells of Cajal (ICCs), the testosterone-secreting cells of the testis (Leydig cells), the cells in the medulla and cortex of the kidney, the cells found in the connective tissue of the ovary, the aortic valve interstitial cells, etc. [1,2,3,4]. As one can perceive, all these cells differ as to origin and phenotype. Moreover, histologists consider that the usually described cells of the connective tissue might also be viewed as interstitial cells, e.g., fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages and blood-derived immune cells (plasma cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, and lymphocytes). From the point of view of pathologists, all cells expressing vimentin can be identified as interstitial cells [5]."
"Interstitial cells” is a morphological term denoting a variety of cells of differing origins and phenotypes occupying spaces within the interstitium between the cells most prominent in defining a given tissue. In smooth muscle tissues fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages, and interstitial cells of Cajal meet this definition. While mainly considered structural or immune cells by many morphologists, interstitial cells have come into prominence because they drive or contribute to the normal functions of smooth muscle organs, and remodeling or loss of these cells can lead to a variety of motor disorders. This review describes the physiology of the fibroblast-like classes of interstitial cells, which can include interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC), ICC-like cells, “Cajal-like” cells, fibroblast-like cells and teleocytes in various anatomical descriptions of smooth muscle tissues."
Overall it looks like the various cell types considered interstitial are so diverse that they are only studied (and highly notable) as subtypes, there are nonetheless reliable sources explaining their relation to each other and giving basic facts about them as a group, making them a great candidate for a list per WP:LISTN. Such a list would also serve a useful function as a souped-up disambiguation page. FourViolas (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into GScholar hits further, it looks like most discussion of organ-specific interstitial cell types is much more complicated than "the following cell types are interstitial in organ X": see e.g. Taylor et al. 2003 on ICs of the cardiac valve, Choi 2010 on ICs in the developing lung, etc. This would make it hard to summarize them in detail in list form, so the best setup for list of interstitial cells would probably be to start with the small amount of context about ICs in general provided in the sources quoted above, then link each entry out to a main article like Interstitial cell of Cajal or, more likely, a subsection like Pineal gland#Microanatomy—many of which would probably have to be added to the parent articles before linked from the table. E.g.:
Tissue Main article Interstitial cell subtypes Notes Ref.
Heart valve Heart valve#Interstitial cells.
[subsection doesn't exist yet, but RS do: [21] [22] [23]] 		Myofibroblasts Taylor et al. 2003
Smooth muscle cells Single or in bunches
Secretory cells Thought to regulate extracellular matrix

FourViolas (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC) FourViolas (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FourViolas I think a category of interstitial cells may be most appropriate for what you are proposing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but there are some problems. First, cell types may be interstitial in some tissues but be the primary components of others (e.g. smooth muscle cells), so it's not that useful to know that some cell type is interstitial somewhere. Second, I'm not sure what pages we'd add to such a category; there are only a few cell types, like interstitial cells of Cajal and mesenchymal cells like fibroblasts that are well-studied primarily as interstitial cells.
The basic use case I'm trying to address is someone coming across a reference to ICs in the paper they're reading about heart valves, kidneys, the pineal gland, or whatever and wanting to know more; I'm hoping they could come here, learn what an IC is in general, and then follow a link through to a subsection on the importance of ICs in whatever tissue context they were interested in in the first place. FourViolas (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful whether the list solves this problem, as we have discussed above "interstitial" is an adjective that describes the location of a cell, so I (personally) think it would make more educational value to redirect to interstitium and provide a small amount of examples there; I don't see the value of a categorical list, and if it is to be categorical then a category may suffice. At any rate, what would you think about expand an existing article (List of distinct cell types in the adult human body) thereby retaining your planned list of interstitial cells and also saving you some effort :)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I think I'll stick with my !vote. Precisely because "interstitial cell" is not a cell type per se, I don't think it's that useful to try to list them at the existing list you mention, and if we did we'd have to duplicate entries from higher on the list (because smooth muscle cells, e.g., are interstitial in some tissues but not others).
The value of a categorical list is that it lets people see which cell types are interstitial in particular tissues, which a category would not do. This is important, because people writing about the ICs in the tissue they specialize in often talk about "interstitial cells" without acknowledging that they're only interstitial relative to that tissue, so you can only figure out what they mean by looking up "kidney interstitial cells" or whatever. A list's intro would explain that this is what the confused person needs to do, and the list's body would allow them to do that. FourViolas (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of available sources which talk about this as a topic:
  1. "Interstitial cell - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 2018-08-14.
  2. Blair, Peter J.; Rhee, Poong-Lyul; Sanders, Kenton M.; Ward, Sean M. (2014). "The Significance of Interstitial Cells in Neurogastroenterology". Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. 20 (3): 294–317. doi:10.5056/jnm14060. PMC 4102150. PMID 24948131.
  3. Rogers, Donald C.; Burnstock, Geoffrey (February 1966). "The interstitial cell and its place in the concept of the autonomic ground plexus - Rogers - 1966 - Journal of Comparative Neurology - Wiley Online Library". Journal of Comparative Neurology. 126 (2): 255–284. doi:10.1002/cne.901260207. PMID 5935376. S2CID 43689038. Retrieved 2018-08-14.
  4. Guraya, Sarduls S. (1991). "Interstitial Cells". SpringerLink. Electron Microscopy in Biology and Medicine: 199–223. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-3944-5_13. ISBN 978-1-4613-6760-4. Retrieved 2018-08-14.
Maybe it should be reworked as a list or dab page for stylistic reasons, but it's certainly worth keeping as a title. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon additional thought, a list would make more sense than a dab page. Dab pages are for resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous (WP:DAB). That doesn't fit here. But List of human interstitial cell types would make perfect sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if you look further into those sources, they're all describing different entities that behave in different ways and have little to do with each other: interstitial cells of the testicle [24], of the renal medulla [25], of the ovary [26], and of intestinal neurons [27] (the last one actually seems to be aiming for a little more generality, but it's from 1966 and pretty clearly out of date). I agree, though, that the page is worth reworking into a list, as I've explained. FourViolas (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was some off-wiki canvassing of opinions going on, but even discounting (not disregarding) those opinions the consensus is mixed. The biggest issue seems to be one of sourcing and puffery. It looks like some inroads have already been made on it, but there is no prejudice against renominating this article in 3-6 months if there are still RS/PUFF/GNG issues. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Arthur[edit]

Isaac Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability, lack of reliable independent sources, WP:SPIP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello. This is not WP:SPIP, I am not a personal benefactor to Isaac Arthur. I believe a science communicator with the capacity to reach out to 250,000 people meets the WP:N guidelines.
    External links section may however be appropriate for removal, I do not believe it adds anything to the article. Tar-Elessar (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also contains puffery, and lacking independent references that prove any significance. Since you can purchase youtube subscriber numbers, the count alone prove nothing much. But if someone else actually wrote about the YouTube channel, that might prove something. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed on the terms of more reliable secondary sources. In the mean time, instead of deletion, I would propose adding {{BLP sources}} to the article (though perhaps not {{refimprove}} as primary sources are already cited).
    If you have identified puffery in the article could you remove it or enumerate on the article's talk page? I think this article has a good chance of becoming one of good quality, though admittedly I may have jumped the gun in publishing it too soon (instead of leaving it as a draft and giving it a few rounds of revision). Thank you for spending the time to look it over. Tar-Elessar (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main issue here is that the subject is not notable according to the requirements of WP articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi there. Added a few references to the article and just wanted to let you know. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm not sure how much of a say I have since as a graphene researcher, I do occasionally advise Isaac on nanomaterials-related topics, but in response to the comments above: the channel does not purchase subscribers (I'm pretty sure Isaac couldn't afford to even if he wanted), I agree that the article needs to have bias removed and more sourcing added (there actually is quite a bit out there, I've seen several news articles feature him), and I agree that until these changes are met the article doesn't really meet the "notable persons" requirement. MMFA (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a few third party references already in the article to support notability and I found a couple others with a quick google search. Wikipedia is WP:notpaper. This article needs help, not to be deleted. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Your editing history (last edit May 2015) strongly suggests you have been canvassed to comment here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isaac Arthur has been covered by various independent sources, establishing his notability. Among these include two articles (here, and here) written about him in the popular news outlet TechRepublic as well as an article written by local newspaper Star Beacon regarding the success of his YouTube channel. Rjgordon (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Your editing history (handful of edits on a single subject, limited to October 2016) suggests that you have been canvassed to comment here. Neither of the TechRepublic pieces are substantively about the subject. Being interviewed in the media is not an indication of notability. Which leaves just the local newspaper as a source... that really doesn't cut it. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. We need the sources to be about the subject in question. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There aren't any reliable sources about this person. I suggest this article be deleted as nothing much mentioned about this person can be verified Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The two apparently canvassed !votes above were a little intriguing... here is the apparent source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:INTERVIEW, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." The subject's statements about themselves are primary sources, of course, but we can generally report those as long as they are not unduly self-serving, contested in reliable sources, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Also per WP:INTERVIEW, "The subject: Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about her upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?" The subject of the two interviews is not the interviewee's (Isaac Arthur's) own life or activities. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That's just one criterion among several for whether an interview is "useful"; it doesn't necessarily determine whether an interview counts toward notability. Compare WP:PROF#C7, according to which academics can become notable by being frequently relied upon as subject-area experts. I don't really have a strong opinion about this article; it just struck me that the available sources were not being evaluated in the way that guidelines and precedent generally indicate. Of course, it's still possible that they don't add up to a case for notability, even so. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Sure, but bear in mind that Isaac Arthur is not an academic so is not subject to WP:PROF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but as a YouTube pop-science person, he meets some loose definition of "educator", so the "spirit" of a guideline like WP:PROF#C7 seems applicable. That's not a hard-and-fast argument, just a statement of where my sentiments lie. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am Patreon supporter of Isaac Arthur but regular Wikipedia editor. I think he has the minimum amount of notability to allow a Wikipedia article. He was also the Chairman of the Ashtabula County Board of Elections.[28]Waters.Justin (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The available material is just barely enough to tip me over into considering him wiki-notable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "relatively well written and well sourced spam." -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Crowley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sheila Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Acting director isn't inherently notable, and its not a cabinet post. All of the other press that would meet the GNG is connected and not independent, so it doesn't count. Likely undeclared paid promotional spam as well, excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. I PROD'd it and then realized that it had been G7'd at AfD, so bringing it here out of an abundance of caution. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No non-trivial secondary coverage, and I could be misreading this since it's late, but she was replaced in January, apparently. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has gained independent news coverage and garnered recognition in the form of several awards, plus one national award named after her. The Richmond Times-Dispatch covered her run for office, as did the Daily Press. Her appearances at U.S. Congressional and Senate committees aired on [C-Span]. I improved the article some but it could use more work. Meantime, it passes WP:Basic and WP:GNG. Notability is evident. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage that gets nowhere near the GNG and doesn't address the fact that this is a commissioned work created in violation of the terms of use so we should still delete it even if it did meet the GNG (which it doesn't.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is national coverage as well. Will find and add to article. You lost me on the "commissioned work." When was that determined, or is it a guess? Unedited, it was a poorly written article about a notable subject. If commissioned, the person doing it failed. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was blocked (by me) for creating a series of blatantly promotional articles in violation of the terms of use on mid-level bureaucrats and conservative figures, and the block was held up on review by an uninvolved admin. This is utter spam and should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on your part. The awards help with notability, as do more articles. I will add them to the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--basically what Tony said. No inherent notability, obviously promotional, and even a couple newspaper articles on a failed rain for office won't help this pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. As independent coverage which shows notability Knightrises10 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per AuthorAuthor above. The failed run for office is less important than her current position as director of the peace corps. Need more evidence that there was paid editing here. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Former acting director, so you clearly aren't reading the sourcing. Also, no, we don't need more evidence of paid editing, we literally can't prove that short of someone admitting it. What we can say is that every article this editor created was blatant spam. Finally, the GNG doesn't matter in obvious paid editing cases, but even if it did, it isn't met. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You got me, I didnt see when her acting director job was up. Still dont, the article doesnt say. I suppose we have different opinions of what GNG is. If this is spam, which it is not, it is relatively well written and well sourced spam. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is the whole point of hiring a paid editor: to dupe people into getting your non-notable resume onto Wikipedia. By keeping this, we are actively harming the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Former acting director and failed candidate for office. No notability whatsoever per WP:N, WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 05:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete acting directors are not normally notable, and failed candidates are almost never notable. Wikipedia is not for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To start with, the sources are in the range of passing mentions to falling just below being the type of secondary, independent sources needed for her to pass WP:GNG. Former acting director also isn't notable ,per say. To counter an above point, nearly all candidates get coverage for their political office runs, doesn't mean they are all notable.In short the sourcing shows she fails any WP:GNG related guideline. JC7V-constructive zone 18:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Souls[edit]

Amazon Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO. Film has not been widely distributed, doesn't seem to have been reviewed anywhere, received no awards. It is mentioned in a few reliable sources linked in the article, but only in passing; the focus on the articles is that the filmmaker went to the Amazon and got married and appear to be the result of a PR campaign - they barely cover the film itself. Other sources appear to be promotional, such as the Kingston University source and the Specialist Speakers source. Popcornduff (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the sources in the article, and all the other sources I've been able to find, are about the filmmaker rather than the film (and many of those sources are tabloids that we should avoid using for claims about living people – the Mail, Mirror, Metro, etc.). I can't find any reviews of the film or any other substantial coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This film is certainly not notable, but a case could be made that Sarah Begum is notable. I just added a further reading list to this page of independent sources discussing her work in producing this film. However, since I am unable to verify any of her other remarkable claims about her life, I think it's better to just delete. Daask (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) wumbolo ^^^ 21:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sech (disambiguation)[edit]

Sech (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unneeded disambiguation page. There's only one entry for "sech". The others are all different spellings for different terms. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the things listed is exactly a "Sech". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :: this looks like an ordinary routine disambig page between several similar words which people may sometimes confuse or misspell. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added a few more entries. – Uanfala (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: And I've moved "Sich" back under the "see also" where all the other things that weren't actually "sech" were moved to. Now it clearly falls under WP:ONEOTHER: There's one primary topic and one other, so it should still be deleted; would you be willing to change your !vote now? This seems like exactly what the guideline is for, and should be a really easy case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And would you be willing to reconsider your move of the Sich entry to the "see also" section in light of the fact that "sech" is a common alternative spelling of it [29] [30]? – Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (I can't access the first link for some reason), but I've found a few places using it, but I'm not sure how common it is. If it's common enough to be noted at the article in question, then maybe; it all seems a bit murkier now at least. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that there are hundreds of hits on google books for any number of phrases in which "sech" refers to the Cossack camp, I wouldn't go as far as calling that murky (even though the issue is moot: we're not intersted in how common is "sech" vs. the other spellings, what matters for the dab page is whether "sech" is used in this sense at all). On a side note, the presence of a primary topic isn't completely clear and there is a case to be made for moving the dab page to the base title. – Uanfala (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: have added sech with one of Uanfala's sources to Sich. Clearly useful and compliant dab page. PamD 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And reverted 2-month-old vandalism at Seich! PamD 14:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Red Phoenix talk 03:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashough Jivani's House-Museum[edit]

Ashough Jivani's House-Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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)

Not notable private museum Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try also:
--Doncram (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to see more information and more discussion here. It appears to be a museum about a writer of songs and fairy tales whose work dates back to at least 1882. It seems to me there ought to be an article about Ashough Jivani (currently a redlink) first, perhaps. Who is this guy, is he important in Georgia (country) like say Hans Christian Andersen (1805–1875) is important in Denmark and western culture generally, or would the average Georgian not know about him? Who would know about the museum? It could be that the person and museum are well-known, but we need some Georgian-familiar editors to help out with developing the article a bit. I notice it doesn't even wikilink to Georgia (country). Perhaps it just needs tagging for development?
Or perhaps there could be a combo article about the person and with a section about the museum. A private museum, if that is what this is, is less obviously notable than if it is a public (i.e. publicly funded) museum, though private museums as long as they are open to the public can be Wikipedia-notable. Note, the fact that there is a museum about this person definitely does speak to the notability of the person. --Doncram (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The writer may be more important to Armenia, broadly, than to Georgia (country). --Doncram (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tentatively, though perhaps move to Ashough Jivani and develop as a combo article about the person, the holiday, and the museum. Sources like this about Jivani Day, suggests to me that this person is notable. Perhaps they are a Georgian folk musician/writer who is being promoted now as part of some program to promote historic Georgian artists, even as part of a political/marketing push for some reason, which would still be okay by me. I think they are a real person and there is some momentum around a day in their name. This adds up to meaning that Wikipedia should explain who is this person. --Doncram (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be about DJIVANI, also known as Serovbe Bangoyan-Levonyan, who lived from 1846 to 1909, and whose works have been published in books from 1882 to 2009 at least. (Try: Djivani, Serovbe Bangoyan-Levonyan.) See bio about him at this website providing bios about Armenian folk artists. Seems like notable person. This reaffirms to me that "Keep" with move is suitable decision. --Doncram (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I said "keep" already so this should be closed. Why trouble anyone else once i have decided? --Doncram (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per doncram. There are sources in Armenian for the museum itself, such as what seem to be the Ankakh newspaper, two articles in the Armenian Times newspaper (Haykakan Zhamanak) (armtimes.com), and the Hay Dzayn newspaper or news magazine (Armenian Voice). Ashugh or Ashough Jivani was an Armenian of exceptional historical importance: [31]. Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, the worst case scenario for this page would be a move and rewrite to Jivani himself, so deletion should be out of the question. James500 (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is useful to have articles on museums that are open to the public. I would be happier if we had an article on the person whose house it was: I have made this a redlink. We may be suffering from transliteration issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I posted notice of this AFD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Armenia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (country). --Doncram (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-instrumentalists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of multi-instrumentalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a necessary or useful list? I think the majority of notable musicians have had some experience of playing more than one instrument. This list would get out of control or be wildly incomplete. Deleted in 2007 at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Please follow through on your research: I have already addressed this at both Talk:List of multi-instrumentalists and Talk:Multi-instrumentalist. Yes, there is a definitional issue: read the very first sentence of Multi-instrumentalist.
As much as I detest fanboy lists, deleting List of multi-instrumentalists certainly means that not only should this list also be forever removed from the article that spawned it, but that even more useless List pages are overdue for removal — compare List of guitarists. (Personally, I could do with ending List of redheads.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Weeb Dingle: Avoid the other stuff exists argument. If someone decides to nominate List of guitarists for deletion, then that can be handled when the time comes. As for this list of multi-instrumentalists, Weeb (above) has only referenced his/her own talk page comments on the matter, which received no response from anyone else. This list, called a "hairball" by Weeb, was spun off from the previously overloaded Multi-instrumentalist and hence the new list article. Weeb's attitude toward this matter is a bit strange... first complaining about how the list was fancruft clogging up that other page, then reluctantly spinning it off into a new list article, but now musing that it should be kept only because other stupid list articles exist. Weeb has actually made a very good argument that the whole thing could have just been removed from Multi-instrumentalist instead of spinning it off into the new list article. But the presence of List of guitarists etc. is irrelevant for the time being. If Weeb feels that my assessment of the situation is correct, I might enter a Delete vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response — as you've correctly surmised, I am not a fan of lists. I will even grant that perhaps I have simply been reading the wrong articles (that is, articles that merely happen to contain particularly egregious examples). However, lists ARE a fact of life on Wikipedia. IMO, what is needed is a simple, concise set of rules to control list proliferation. If such exists here somewhere, I will gratefully accept its authority.
If this list doesn't deserve to live independently, it appears reasonable to me that it isn't much more deserving to overwhelm an otherwise acceptable article.
It's my opinion as well that, properly curated, List of multi-instrumentalists has some actual purpose (informational, scholarly, whatever), compared to random heaps like List of guitarists, which really ought to be left as a Category — perhaps that would be a more generally acceptable fate for this data?
If there's enough active interest in ashcanning the page under discussion, it certainly won't affect my life (nor, I suspect, that of anyone except the omnipresent fans who are driven to share trivia about their hero-of-the-moment). But I would certainly like to see deletion handled in a replicable manner, allowing application to other lists, in hopes of stemming nonsense like List of Harley-Davidson owners or List of green-eyed actors, seeing as we've already got List of musicians who play left-handed.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are in search of new rules about preventing list proliferation and (possibly) deleting lists en-masse if they share the same weaknesses. Not sure where the best place to discuss that would be, but you might want to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. By the way, I agree with you on how Categories are better in some cases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, likely incomplete and unnecessary list, previously deleted. No prejudice against re-creating this list for only top-50 or top-100 artists worldwide or in the USA, but as is, it's messy, way too long and has no purpose. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I commented above and was waiting for some new interpretations to come along. I agree with the last voter's reasoning, in that this list would be perpetually incomplete and would get uncomfortably close to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (this may be more appropriate for the talkpage), i had a look at this page expecting to see a list of musicians stating the instruments that they are known for/proficient in, instead it is just a list of names, that is not very useful, also as the voice is an instrument it could be argued that anybody who sings and plays an instrument is a multi-instrumentalist. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps. wheres Bob Dylan? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the same reasoning as the delete votes so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being Wikipedia, he is waiting for whomever notices his absence to WP:SOFIXIT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
me bad, done:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not seeing any real reason for deletion here. A multi-instrumentalist is not a musician that picks up another instrument once in a while. As we say in our article on the topic, it's a person with a professional level of proficiency in two or more instruments. An inclusion criteria would thus be easy to articulate (e.g. "notable musicians notable for a professional level of proficiency in two or more instruments," possibly requiring sources calling them a "multi-instrumentalist"). It's also a notable topic for a list, having received more than enough coverage (though it doesn't look like notability has been challenged). Being incomplete is explicitly not a valid reason for deletion, nor is being perpetually incomplete. We rarely do complete lists; we do encyclopedic lists. Every list of notable examples (including most musician-related lists) is going to be incomplete because they're not supposed to be complete. They're supposed to include what's encompassed by our inclusion criteria (typically WP:CSC). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW there's more referencing work to do, but I've added a few just for the sake of having some. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. Satisfies LISTN. No valid argument for deletion. James500 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Red Phoenix talk 03:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justus Goebel[edit]

Justus Goebel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable brother of a Kentucky governor. One small article when he was indicted, an obituary in a smallish industry jurnal, and that's it. His brother gets a lengthy lemma in the "Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky"[32], and Justus isn't even mentioned. Google and Google Books failed to produce more results (among the sources for his brother, confusingly named William Justus Goebel). Fram (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, poor sourcing.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears the subject's claim to fame is that his brother was a governor. Otherwise, sourcing shows the subject was president of a furniture company, was indicted for embezzlement (apparently not convicted), and was a Kentucky delegate one year to a Democratic National Convention. Does not meet basic notability standards. - Keep I withdraw my earlier ivote after doing a broader online source search and finding vintage newspaper coverage of speeches the subject gave and more info about his hunt for his brother's killer. I, therefore, believe the subject, a high-profile activist in his day, meets notability guidelines. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC) - AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:HEY, I did a little sourcing, the problem is that when you run a new archive search there is not too little sourcing, the problem is there is far too much INDEPTH in old newspapers, often in archives that are paywalled. He was one of three brothers, one becomes governor of Kentucky, another becomes wealthy and leaves his fortune to our man Justus, who was already rich and apparently becomes very rich. When the Governor dies Justus moves to Kentucky to take over his brother's political machine. And spends a lot of time, effort and money trying to figure out who killed his brother. At that point I decided to just leave the several new sources on the page, and point out here that the fin de siecle newspaper coverage of him (bribing politically people as part of his political involvement) makes this just one of the many, many articles we have on old time political and business figures whose articles need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG, although they may not come up in a casual search. It appears this is a case of recency bias, because the sources are not in-your-face on the internet. They are on paper, microfilm, and in old newspapers (including the NY Times), but often behind paywalls. He made page 2 of the NY Times in 2/09/1900. The article may not be in a perfect state now, but there is WP:TIME to make it better.Jacona (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reasons for deletion listed in the deletion policy are met. The general notability guideline is met.Jacona (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's sad to see these sort of nominations. The references cited look sufficient to me, thanks to the recent editors. Wikipedia:Newspapers.com (free access for Wikipedians) for 1870-1908 and excluding "William Justus" (to exclude William Justus and his son "Justus Goebel Jnr.) throws up 1493 hits. But there was a racehorse called "Justus Goebel" which messes things up! Mostly passing mentions and, yes, the bribery charges were dropped. He was quite a big noise in Kentucky but never ran for office - certainly pulled lots of strings though. Only 19 obituaries, all in Kentucky papers. I'm hamstrung by not knowing which were the major newspapers in 19th century America for me to adequately reply to people who (wrongly) believe coverage must be at least regional. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Comes across as meeting WP:BASIC. Wording here "comes across" is based upon my not being able to access some of the sources in the article, per paywalling/subscription required. North America1000 09:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America1000 01:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry Cat Group[edit]

Coventry Cat Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not begin meet our notability requirements for companies and organisations. News coverage is purely local and far from extensive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "Meooww, meeeooowww, purrrrhhh, meeooww, merrrowww.", Mitskie tells me that although the CCG does great work, they probably don't meet WP requirements (i reminded her of WP:GNG), being a net-savvy cat she showed be a couple of online mentions: here and here, i told her they don't really discuss the organisation, concentrating on the cats ("Meow, meow, meerrow!", "yes Mitskie, its really all about the kitties."), so a delete from me (and Mitskie). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Woof! Not enough bones in those references to meet notability requirements. This topic should be chased away as it isn't notable and doesn't smell like it should to meet WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HotSoft BVBA[edit]

HotSoft BVBA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non-notable company which fails WP:NCORP and has no sources at all . Kpgjhpjm 09:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The only editor User:Mehuldharkar has added some external links to company websites, and 3 refs (though not a reflist) which are just directory info. I don't see a future from these "improvements". Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've cleaned up most of the promotional junk, but there's not a lot to this. None of the references (pre-cleanup) are anything more than directory listings. I was unable to locate anything else more substantial than SEM drops. Note there are several other small companies that share this name. Kuru (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow pages or platform for promotion. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Vishnepolsky[edit]

Oleg Vishnepolsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SELFPUB (Self-promotional content) and no reliable sources (everything comes from author own LinkedIn account). Fails notability: 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. Pointed out on talk page as well. Basicbbr (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Glassman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rodney Glassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2009. Fails WP:NPOL as a city council member and failed candidate and WP:GNG and if not deleted, needs to be rewritten to be less promotional. SportingFlyer talk 09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Respectable career of public service, but no singular achievements, no extraordinary coverage by media, and has not been elected to major office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to being notable. Not all candidates are notable. Nor are members of the Tucson city council default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ripoff Report. North America1000 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation Action League[edit]

Defamation Action League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline. Created by a single-purpose account. TeraTIX 08:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohith V. S.[edit]

Rohith V. S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

UPE Spam.Fails WP:NCREATIVE by a mile.No significant coverage about the subject is located, except as trivial name-mentions (and for bytes) as the director of two films in the news-reviews of the same. ∯WBGconverse 08:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. S. Werbe[edit]

Richard H. S. Werbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of individual notability; almost everything used as a reference here is primarily about the company. Merely placing on Forbes 30 under 30 is not notability in the sense used in WP--like other junior awards, it more closely amounts to : not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Turner (Texas politician)[edit]

John Turner (Texas politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Reads like a political statement more than a encyclopedia article. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete promotional page for a candidate. Can reconsider if he wins. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep He *did* win two elections: a Texas primary election and an open ballot primary, not just a candidate. FlyingToaster 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winning a primary simply means that he gets to keep being a candidate. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is a candidate for state legislature, not Congress. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly Clarification The above is incorrect: he is a candidate for Congress, not state legislature FlyingToaster 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Friendlier Clarification The above is incorrect: he is a candidate for the Texas House of Reps 114th district (state legislature)... Not U.S. Congress. Redditaddict_6_9 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly mea culpa Oh, my bad! Misread. FlyingToaster 00:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anirudh Tanwar[edit]

Anirudh Tanwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines for actors, and WP:GNG as well. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't starred in anything major, and the only sources I could find on him were simple statements that he would be appearing in an upcoming movie. Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not even debuted. Generally people need two roles for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfect case of WP:TOOSOON Accesscrawl (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich short film[edit]

Sandwich short film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD rationale was "Non-notable short film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM" so since the PROD was removed by user Skwiki32 without any improvement or explanation, I'm nominating it for deletion. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Knapik[edit]

Daniel Knapik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a former Mayor of Westfield, Massachusetts, a city with a population of less than 50,000, - and does not meet WP:NPOL. There is some coverage in Mass Live, which covers Western Massachusetts, and other local coverage. From what I saw in the coverage was primarily WP:ROUTINE. The subject is also covered in the news as "Dan Knapik." Enos733 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's disagreement on whether the sources mentioned are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NRIVALRY. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas–UTSA football rivalry[edit]

North Texas–UTSA football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The four current citations neither demonstrate a rivalry, nor meet the GNG bar of "significant coverage." Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources, including 2017 description as a "budding ... rivalry"[33]. There have been five games played to date, 2013-2017. Fails GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the following sources were found on the first page of Google:
    "North Texas’ short, bitter rivalry with UTSA continues this weekend" (North Texas Daily)
    "Naming the North Texas and UTSA Rivalry" (Forgotten 5)
    "UTSA vs. UNT is the Texas Rivalry the Conference Needs" (GoMeanGreen.com)
    "There’s definitely a history there and our players understand that...with these rivalry games it doesn’t matter" (San Antonio Express-News)

    Seems like several sources from both schools are referring to the game as a rivalry. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1. Mostly legit, but focussed on player/coach quotes as supporting. #2. "We have already established that this matchup has all of the necessary ingredients to be a rivalry." and not a RS in my view. #3. A message board post, not RS. 4. Paywall, view source says "a budding rivalry". Looking for significant coverage from RS which state there is a rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if anything, this seems to be a regional rivalry at this time. I have no prejudice toward re-creation in the future if it comes to the level of notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Same as PCN02WPS. The rivalry has even more sources than the ones listed above that talk about the topic. The Shula Bowl you could say is a regional rivalry. You don't see reports in Washington or another state talking about that rivalry on a national level. Unlike the UTEP rivalry with UTSA, UTSA and NT schools both state the rivalry and have multiple sources year in and year out. --Jpp858 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only #1 (North Texas Daily) is a WP:RS, while the other three are not. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage." Can you please share any new RS citations which you may have discovered and are required by GNG? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with regional rivalries when they receive coverage in reliable sources. It's also worth noting that Texas has the same population as a medium-sized country, so it seems somewhat disingenuous to say it should be deleted because most of the coverage is from there. Smartyllama (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please identify your new RS citation which demonstrate "significant coverage"? Because they are not currently in the article and haven't been located to date, which is precisely why there is an AfD. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Shetty[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chandan Shetty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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)

Notability cannot be established due to lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention BrantleyIzMe (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It does count. The article was first nominated for deletion about 10 months ago but for some reasons it was not deleted. I think its now worthy to be on WP. However, it desperately needs attention from someone who is familiar with the subject (Indian musicians) BrantleyIzMe (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted at that time but it was recreated:-) ∯WBGconverse 09:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) wumbolo ^^^ 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Ruotolo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andrew K. Ruotolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, county prosecutors are not usually notable. Coverage is routine, an obituary and a few mentions in stories about car theft. The previous discussion was closed as keep, although the result really should have been "no consensus". Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article was brought to AfD less than a year ago by the same editor. It was Kept with the comment by the closing editor "The result was keep after improvements to the article.". Bringing it here again seems to teeter on the brink of DISRUPT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Standard practice of muddying the waters from you. Please strike your personal attack. Renominating an article for deletion 9 months later is not WP:DISRUPT and you should know better. The general advice on renominating for deletion has always been six months. A result of 3 keep and 2 delete is hardly a consensus to keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the reason why the 1st AfD closed as KEEP, which was that WP:HEYMANN improvement had been made by RAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP for pretty much the same reasons editors gave for iVoting to KEEP last winter. And because it reliably sourced and passes WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the notable cases that could be added to the article is the Chinese espionage case portrayed here: [34], and described in Nicholas Eftimiades's book Chinese Intelligence Operations: Espionage Damage Assessment Branch, US Defense Intelligence Agency, Routledge, 2017. And in the Chicago Tribune,14 February 1984 High-tech plot partial success.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You want to use a group picture as a source, is this a joke? The second source is paywalled, but my guess is it only has a passing mention of Ruotolo.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my comment. I linked to a courtroom sketch by a notable artist that shows Rufolo at the trial (archives of one of America's great Law School), to a book, and to an article on the case in the Chicago Tribune to make the point that the Rufolo article can be expanded by the addition of a notable case about Chinese espionage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure he fails WP:POLITICIAN and he fails WP:NFOOTY too. Quite a loser. But the article cites two obituaries (one sourced to Associated Press), both different, plus another one in the NYT. Substantial and differently written. That's good enough for me. In addition there are several articles (and many more uncited) individually giving less than "significant coverage". The reason WP:N gives for discounting these is that they do not supposedly allow us to write more than " a few sentences". That is clearly wrong in this case and for any article where the brief mentions provide information on different aspects of a topic. So, I'll invoke "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" here – that is not to ignore the rules but it is to abide by the notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Thincat that the three obituaries cited in the article are sufficient to establish notability. As WP:POLITICIAN explains: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." This person does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline, but it's immaterial because he does meet the general notability guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:42, which is good enough for any article. --Jayron32 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Was kept in January by clear community consensus. Please nominate articles wisely! gidonb (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is little-to-no independent, reliable coverage *about* the topic to indicate notability. The topic may become notable. I would be willing to restore this to user space provided unambiguous significant, independent, reliable coverage is shown, but consensus also seems to indicate an editor undertaking this endeavor would be better-suited to start over. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Marks[edit]

Richard J. Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thirty-eight references must mean it's notable, right? Upon examination, no. Invited to take advantage of WP:THREE, the author came back with six:

  • Newsweek is a primary source interview with Marks and his partner, with no independent analysis by the interviewer.[35]
  • Link TV is a credit for "Video/Photography" at the end of a video. It is not independent, not secondary, and not significant coverage.[36]
  • China Daily is a primary source interview—Marks in the words of Marks and his partner—with no independent analysis.[37]
  • The Atlantic's content about Marks is five sentences and a quotation of a cleansing ritual he read.[38]
  • Washington Life is not significant coverage. It's a photo caption and the sentence "Amb. Lund and Blue Salon hosts ..., Richard Marks, ... and Haseltine, presented the speakers with hand-blown Swedish glass."[39]
  • Best of DC is a two-page advertorial spread, not independent, not secondary, and not significant coverage. Its content about Marks? "Our media company is headed by energy, environmental and media professionals, Richard J. Marks, Sophia A. Trapp and Christa Urbain Carr."[40]

The other thirty-two references are worse. The author has engaged in WP:BOMBARD, flooding the article with tangential material, perhaps in the hope that some notability will rub off on Marks. The second paragraph of the China section, for instance, says Hiu Ng and her husband Daniel Foa put Marks in charge of producing and implementing a competition in China. Instead of citing any source that says anyone put Marks in charge of anything, the draft cites sources to prove Ng is married to Foa, sources about Ng's uncle, sources about Clinton, Wen Jiabao, Gordon Brown, UN Under-Secretary General Maurice Strong, and the actress who presented the competition's awards.

  • Not significant coverage (mentions in the credits, listing as a member/speaker, photo caption, or other brief mention), many also lack independence: Credit Suisse, International Earth Forum, U.S. Dept. of Energy, CATE school bulletin, Marc Marks obit, Link TV, WIREC 2008 ad, ACORE, hulkmovie.com, Innocents at Risk, gcctf.org, and Inland Ocean Coalition
  • No mention of Marks: Forest Business Network, Credit Suisse press release, TV.com, The Telegraph, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Selling Big to China, Women of China, Clinton Foundation press release, Culture Change, The Stranger, San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission (x 2), Webby Awards press release, and Marc Marks capsule bio,
  • Not reliable: factsanddetails (a personal website of a third party), IMDb, filminamerica (x 2, sourced from IMDb)

I was unable to evaluate one source, Bloomberg, which is behind a paywall.[41]. It would have to be a phenomenally good source to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG on its own (or at best in conjunction with the five sentences in The Atlantic.) Worldbruce (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional article, focussing in undue detail on a host of minor accomplishments. Nothing that I see is sufficiently substantial to prove notability , and the style is so outrageously promotional and full of puffery that if there is any notability , the article would have to be deleted and started over. Either the promotionalism or the dubious notability is an adequate reason for deletion, let alone the combination. DGG ( talk )

The notability for this person, and the reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia, is a series of environmental first-of's (and one-of's) and convening globally. The Wikipedia editor who approved the original version added a special talk page for "discovery" of how to best approach "one-of's" and "first-of's" events with important, high-profile personalities, that were organized by Marks to support the environment in China and US. It is not Marks who is the speaker, but the organizer/convener/founder. If this can be corrected (repositioned in the writing), for Wikipedia, using the China media references that exist in Newsweek, China Daily, LinkTV, and Washington Life, it would be a worthwhile effort. Second, the subject is a bona fide, credentialed journalist who has taken his content into an original direction. Thus, notability (why he matters) in this case is unique, and why this piece was developed and written in the first place. Clearly not a cookie-cutter journalist following stories, he is seen to be originating, via the convening of people who are change-agents. What this piece should convey is that this behind-the-scenes convener is playing a serious role in leadership voices coming forth. That has been its purpose. Notwithstanding, the mention of his "credentials" as a bona fide journalist at CNN and National Geographic were removed from the original article because in both cases they were broadcast journalism, not print, and therefore are not listed in print materials (except for press releases). If they can be replaced, somehow, then we will have a fuller presentation of credentials.

The content challenge and opportunity has been to introduce (and reputably cite) China. If the bulk of the China work is to be cut, it still stands that The Green Salon was profiled several times by established media, again, as a convening of environmental discussion with people of influence and importance. The International Earth Forum was a "one-of" as was the SISC. They took place in important contexts, such as the beginning of the Olympics, and around the first global commitments to climate change. Context matters here immensely. That context was in the original text.

The nature, notability and relevance of this person is leadership convening.

To try to preserve this article, new content about him as a journalist can be inserted. From the research I have, he was Editor of Washington Life Magazine, appearing on the masthead in every print issue in 2012. Masthead: https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/10 In October 2012, there is a feature exclusive interview with United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador Al-Otaiba, with byline written by Richard J. Marks (p. 84-87): https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/83

Lettucecup (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

are you actualy saying that because he was editor, that he printed an editorial written by himself is an independent proof of notability? DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no intention here to conflate the two. Because National Geographic and CNN have no print citations available to certify the subject's life and context as a journalist (which were in the original article), I pulled up a new source, that he was Editor of Washington Life magazine in Washington DC, shown in the masthead each month in 2012. The feature article with his byline is a separate link that came up in the search, and is a separate item. Lettucecup (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettuecup[reply]

ERRATA/ Per the Worldbruce review of the LinkTV credits, I reviewed the video again. Marks is, in fact, credited in 3 places. The relevant and significant credit is that of Producer, at Time Code 25:30 (Producers: Raisa Scriabine, Richard Marks). (This is significant coverage of the International Earth Forum that Marks, Trapp and Su convened, as described in the article). As Worldbruce indicated, Marks is also credited, along with others, for photography/video (Time Code 23:38). LinkTV credited the co-production (Time Code 24:04) of the environmental television series: "Earth Focus is produced in association with Productions 1000." Marks, as we know from the article, founded Productions 1000, convened the International Earth Forum, and produced the television coverage (not about himself, not about Productions 1000, but about the event in China (which was covered by Johathan Ansfield of Newsweek/New York Times, FU Jiung of China Daily, and Chinese media, during the opening week of the Olympics in China).

[I am aware that our obligation in Wikipedia is not reporting original research, but to work from sourcing. Given this situation, however, where notability can be established, I called the executive producer Raisa Scriabine, who added some additional meaningful detail. Note: this is just for background interest! She said this television segment "mattered a lot" because it was the first-ever (and only) story -- covering CHINA -- that LinkTV/Earth Focus (now called KCETLink) produced and broadcast on its global television network; Earth Focus was the longest-running environmental television program, ever. She felt the voices of youth leaders particularly important then, such as the profile of "China's Green Brothers" that appears in the episode.]

This is all very consistent with what I discovered about Richard Marks during researching and piecing this together ... a track record producing first-of's and one-of's in frontier environmental countries and settings, with prestigious partners, i.e. presenting a forum of leadership (a mix of senior-level and youth), in China and attaining global media coverage, in print and TV, for the environment.]

Further, because of the issues being faced here, I have spoken with Marks to talk about whether there is additional biography of his life and times for Wikipedia. He did say that the Best of DC article was a first-of for Washington DC, and that it was not advertorial. There was no payment, advertising, sponsorship or even an ulterior motive. Other companies profiled include CSPAN and the National Press Club. Marks was interviewed, and that is how it was printed. Productions 1000 was a "new kid on the block" in Washington DC, London and Beijing -- and an independent media outlet focused on energy and environment. The reason there is not more, as it turns out, was due to the Global Breakdown/Recession/Crash of 2009, which came 5 months after launch of the International Earth Forum in Beijing. That, he says, caused everything to freeze. Therefore, subsequent entries arose, such as his senior consultancy at the US Department of Energy, journalistic role as Editor at Washington Life, and publications in conservation finance/Impact Investing -- in continuation of environmentalism.

How I see this: there is a clear thread, a "frontier" context at play for the environment, at an earlier time in climate discussions, when media needed to be focused on convening for solutions for the environment to take a much higher priority. Marks has accomplished that.

Lettucecup (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Upon re-review:

Marks is listed in the obituary of his paternal uncle, Congressman Marc L. Marks: https://www.sagelbloomfield.com/obituaries/Marc-Marks/#!/Obituary (located in the tab: "obituary and service")

Regarding the Credit Suisse report "Levering Ecosystems", NO individual authors are listed in the corporate Credit Suisse Press Release. On p. 27, inside the print edition, there are 5 authors cited in the credits page, with a full separate-line credit for Marks cited as "Senior Editorial Advisor, Richard J. Marks, Productions 1000 - Energy, Environment, Sustainability". In addition to Credit Suisse corporate communications, each primary entity issued its own official press release: http://www.productions1000.com/conservation-finance-press-release.html https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/press-releases/creditsuisse-climatebonds-ecosystemfinance/5april-2016 Lettucecup (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

  • Hello everyone -- I'm working hard on this. I went back to the original draft, which had much more in it, before the article got so pared down so far that notability became a problem. In the section "Career" the content about the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has been restored. Along with it, and context that is needed to make it pertinent and interesting, are two official videos that Marks produced for the leading, signature Renewable Energy events in the United States -- the Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF) and WIREC (a high-profile, first-of, and one-of), in which Marks is credited in each one as as sole Producer. To make this easy ... here are the time codes for those credits -- notability: "The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382 (Time Code 7:41); "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00). Thanks. Lettucecup (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]
  • A sentence has been added: In 2012, he was the Editor of Washington Life Magazine. Here is the masthead (2012):

https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/10 Lettucecup (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

  • One of the flags relates to potential need for improvement of the article's lead section.

Therefore, the lead section has been rewritten, and it remains short. Hopefully it is now a sharp and resonant representation of who this person is. Lettucecup (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

1)What's the link for the clarification you refer to here "the Wikipedia editor who approved the original version added a special talk page for "discovery" of how to best approach "one-of's" and "first-of's" events with important, high-profile personalities, that were organized by Marks to support the environment in China and US. " I think it possible that you may have misunderstood completely DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not significantly covered in reliable sources per above. GenuineArt (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am referring to the Talk page of the article, in which Broccoli and Coffee asked for people to offer advice:
    • "This is a new page for journalist Richard J. Marks. The main consideration I want to solve is how much information is worthwhile, given that several of the initiatives are high profile, but were one-of's ... and therefore worthy of explanation, and contextual information. Otherwise, for the sake of the page referring to Richard J. Marks, they can be cut. The question is how to best make this page interesting while keeping it within Wikipedia's style guidelines.— 17:13, June 26, 2018 (UTC) Lettucecup (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]
@Lettucecup: The talk page comment you quote was added by you, not by Broccoli and Coffee, and the only response it elicited, from Drmies, was to the effect that the article wasn't up to standard when they read it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Thanks for all your input, I want you to know I appreciate it. I don't know why the Talk Page quote has my signature on it, but I didn't write it. I didn't create (or edit) that comment. I interacted with Broccoli and Coffee, who edited the page, then placed that commentary on the Talk page when he/she approved the article. In any case, I'm just clarifying because I don't want to sound like I'm not understanding what the comments here are about -- which is a critical tone of some. I understand them. I have rewritten the article completely since you reviewed it, trying to make it work. Thanks again. Lettucecup (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]
Lettucecup, sorry, but this page is illegible in part because of the many linebreaks. Will you please consolidate into paragraphs, and simply put your signature at the end, not two lines down? Thank you. And please use preview, and try to complete your thoughts before you post them so you don't have to make so many edits: this page already has 15 edits by you. Also, I don't know what you're talking about--you most certainly placed the first talk page comment. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies Sorry, I appear to have made a mistake, re: Broccoli and Coffee, who, when the article was approved, posted a request for discussion about how to improve the China references but I don't see it now. I must have copied and pasted it. No worries. The China work with Hiu NG, and USDOE, have been removed, as they cannot be adequately referenced.

At your request, the edits and complete new rewrite, in one place:

Upon re-review:

1. Marks is listed in the obituary of his paternal uncle, Congressman Marc L. Marks: https://www.sagelbloomfield.com/obituaries/Marc-Marks/#!/Obituary (located in the tab: "obituary and service")

2. Regarding the Credit Suisse report "Levering Ecosystems", NO individual authors are listed in the corporate Credit Suisse Press Release. On p. 27, inside the print edition, there are 5 authors cited in the credits page, with a full separate-line credit for Marks cited as "Senior Editorial Advisor, Richard J. Marks, Productions 1000 - Energy, Environment, Sustainability". In addition to Credit Suisse corporate communications, each primary entity issued its own official press release: http://www.productions1000.com/conservation-finance-press-release.html https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/press-releases/creditsuisse-climatebonds-ecosystemfinance/5april-2016 L

3. REWRITE: I went back to the original draft, which had much more in it, before the article got so pared down so far that notability became a problem. In the section "Career" the content about the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has been restored/replaced. Along with it, and context that is needed to make it pertinent and interesting, are two official videos that Marks produced for the leading, signature Renewable Energy events in the United States -- the Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF) and WIREC (a high-profile, first-of, and one-of), in which Marks is credited in each one as as sole Producer. To make this easy ... here are the time codes for those credits -- notability: "The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382(Time Code 7:41); "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00).

4. Regarding the flag about the article's lead section. It has been rewritten, and it remains short. Hopefully it is now a sharp and resonant representation of who this person is. Journalistic accreditation/notability: A sentence has been added: In 2012, he was the Editor of Washington Life Magazine, and is a published writer. With link to masthead (2012): https://issuu.com/washingtonlife/docs/october2012/10

5. ERRATA/ Per the Worldbruce review of the LinkTV credits, I reviewed the video again. Marks is, in fact, credited in 3 places. The relevant and significant credit is that of Producer, at Time Code 25:30 (Producers: Raisa Scriabine, Richard Marks). (This is significant coverage of the International Earth Forum that Marks, Trapp and Su convened, as described in the article). As Worldbruce indicated, Marks is also credited, along with others, for photography/video (Time Code 23:38). LinkTV credited the co-production (Time Code 24:04) of the environmental television series: "Earth Focus is produced in association with Productions 1000." Marks, as we know from the article, founded Productions 1000, convened the International Earth Forum, and produced the television coverage (not about himself, not about Productions 1000, but about the work in China (which was covered by Johathan Ansfield of Newsweek/New York Times, FU Jiung of China Daily, and Chinese media, during the opening week of the Olympics in China). Lettucecup (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

In an attempt at clarification: I made comments about the article during a draft review here, as well as a reply on my talk page, which is now here. The comment on the talk page, as Worldbruce mentioned, was left by Lettucecup, not me. I'm not aware of any comments I made about "a request for discussion about how to improve the China references".
In any case, this article has always struggled with reliable sourcing. I think it has the potential to be notable enough, but on closer inspection, the sources don't prove that. Worldbruce conducted a much more thorough review than I did, and for my part, I was probably too quick to approve it while in draft stage. My vote would be to userfy rather than delete. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broccoli and Coffee sorry for the confusion, I didn't remember posting that request for assistance, my mistake. Nonetheless, hopefully this article will make it through to rebirth. Thank you for clarifying and replying today. Lettucecup (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

Lettucecupp, do you still not realize that being mentioned in his parent's obit does not even contribute to notability ; it just confirms who his father is. Andthat hosting an event where famous people come does not make a person notable? DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I am respectfully going to ask you to address your comments, when they are addressed to me directly, in a tone that is not rude. In your comments, you are outright condescending in your tone, even if your comments merit discussion, by me or others. If others stand for it, that's their business, but I won't. The tone of "do you still not realize" and "are you actually saying" etc. is punitive. I will always try to answer questions harmoniously and accurately. I do not want to incite any form of argument, but to help this conversation advance in a neutral and constructive manner. To answer your question in the way I wish to answer it best: Marks is an accredited journalist, convener and environmentalist who translates/broadcasts prestigious convening content into film narratives, especially environmental solutions. Lettucecup (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

  • Userfy - SWEET JESUS - I pity the poor closing admin on this one. In a somewhat more concise fashion, I feel that the provided sources (as well as a look elsewhere) don't satisfy notability. He might have conducted some significant interviews, but that doesn't generate necessary sources on him. A delete seems unwarranted and counter-productive in this case. It is one of the clearest cases where userfy is suitable and would ask the Delete !voters to consider it. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's deletion policy encourages incubation as an alternative to deletion for "articles which have potential". If, as you say, the provided sources and your searches elsewhere don't establish notability (my extensive efforts didn't either) then I'm not sure what potential the article has. The author has had two months to come up with three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Marks, and has been unable to do so, despite guidance from several experienced reviewers. Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability sums it up. They are, of course, free to save a copy on their own computer; perhaps they can publish it in an alternative outlet that has different inclusion criteria. But we shouldn't encourage investing more editor and reviewer time in something that won't build the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For supposedly being a notable journalist, a WP:BEFORE check doesn't really come up with anything at all. I appreciate Lettucecup's hard work on trying to make this work, but truthfully it's just not going to fly because Marks is not a notable subject. Where is there a reliable source about the subject? While I would not be opposed to a userfy here, I can't help but feel that Lettucecup would simply be wasting his/her time, and that this would only be effective if there suddenly was more coverage about Marks, which doesn't exist now. Red Phoenix talk 03:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gramercy Property Trust[edit]

Gramercy Property Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete The references are all based on company announcements and they fail WP:ORGIND. There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. A footnote in The Blackstone Group would be more appropriate. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: What? Anybody can set up a business and launch it as a public company by having it listed on a stock exchange, and if you are in the United States there is a high probability that you will do so on the New York Stock Exchange, since that is by an overwhelming margin the biggest stock exchange in the country. (In fact it is by far the biggest in the world.) There are not far short of 3000 companies listed, of which many are not remotely notable, by Wikipedia's standards or any other standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: @HighKing:. For notability of listed companies, please see WP:LISTED. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge a bit into the Blackstone Group since they've all but takenover the company (awaiting shareholder approval). BTW R.E.I.Ts commonly trade on the NYSE, but are not stocks in any of the usual senses, more like a RE mutual fund. I would generally support the idea of making companies with stocks trading actively on major exchanges automatically notable. But REITs, pink sheet listings, etc. need not apply. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ateneo de Manila University. Yunshui 雲水 08:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Philippine Culture[edit]

Institute of Philippine Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, advertising based on related sources. Institute of the jesuit Ateneo de Manila University, not notable enough for a separate article. WP:COI. The Banner talk 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the nominator feels it is not notable enough for a separate article, the nominator should clarify if s/he thinks a merger is appropriate. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ateneo de Manila University. Only one of the current sources is independent of the think tank, although it does seem to do important work. We often, although not uniformly, merge such institutes into the main university article. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. While there are quite a few hits in google news all are some variant of "So-and-so, from the Institute of Philippine Culture, said bla-bla-bla". I couldn't find anything approaching significant coverage of the school itself anywhere else either. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of M*A*S*H guest stars[edit]

List of M*A*S*H guest stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of guest stars on television program.

There's no debate that actors with wikilinks meet WP:N and that M*A*S*H was a popular televison show. But there are no sources about the topic of M*A*S*H guest stars treated as a whole, and list article fails WP:TVCAST, WP:V, and WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with sources provided for every guest star listed, the article wouldn't have notability, as stated in the nom. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 06:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the other commenters' rationales. The show is notable, (some of) the guest stars are notable, but this topic is decidedly not. The more significant guest/recurring stars can be mentioned in List of MASH characters if there are sufficient sources to warrant their mention. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maine gubernatorial election, 2018. Yunshui 雲水 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Moody[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shawn Moody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moody has not won a single election and only received 5% of the vote in the Maine gubernatorial election 8 years ago. He is now the GOP nominee for Governor in 2018, though a nomination does not verify notability by WP:N, WP:NPOL nor WP:GNG. He would have to win the election to attain notability, otherwise he is like any other politician this election cycle whose article has been deleted because they didn't win the election. Examples: Bill Lee (Tennessee politician) and Jane Raybould, nominees for Tennessee Governor and Nebraska U.S. Senator both closed as redirects. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 02:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Kinda doubt he's going to win, but if he does, we can always recreate. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Conway[edit]

Denis Conway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Paull (actor)[edit]

Andrew Paull (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widenta[edit]

Widenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company does not pass WP:NCORP and article has several promotional aspects to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would expect a large manufacturing company like this one to generate a certain amount of coverage, but mos of what I can find consists of articles about how rich the company's owners are. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Perhaps there are articles in Hungarian? HighKing++ 22:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree. I will admit that I will not proclaim that my ability to suss out Hungarian sources is strong so they might exist but I was unable to find them in my BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tape (JavaScript testing framework)[edit]

Tape (JavaScript testing framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable JavaScript framework. Couldn't find any coverage. Does have ~4.7K GitHub stars, but all of the sources I could find are self-published. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Tan Boon Jin[edit]

Patrick Tan Boon Jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent and non-trivial references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nominator, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Probably a vanity bio. The history of Visiber may be connected. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Bio of a businessman that fails notability. I tried to justify a keep based on his honorific title Datuk that was awarded. Turns out that this title is ranked 9th and 10th respectively in the rank of federal awards. So this title alone does not claim notability on this own. the lack of WP:SIGCOV in mainstream media is the reason for proposing a delete. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister Squad[edit]

Sinister Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, only reviews from non-professional sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable film. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage seems mostly restricted to blog-like sites. No coverage in reliable sources. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eggdancer Productions[edit]

Eggdancer Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a Saudi company that cites no sources except company's website. A routine BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR finds three RS references in which company is mentioned in a single sentence. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP , and article has no reliable sources . Kpgjhpjm 06:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, there does not appear to be any references that meet the criteria for notability, topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Also, the same claim, that this TV production company was the in Saudi Arabia allowed to be owned and managed by women without a male business partner is a dubious claim to notability. It seems that there is probably a claim for all sorts of "firsts" for different types of companies. It is also difficult to find reliable support for this claim which is made in each of the articles for Danya Alhamrani and Dania Nassief. HighKing++ 22:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greener Grass Production[edit]

Greener Grass Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a company that cites no sources. A routine BEFORE search on Google News and JSTOR finds three incidental references (one sentence mentions in credit lines). Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability isn't inherited, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigger Picture Malta[edit]

The Bigger Picture Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a company that has had no sources listed for the last nine (9) years. A routine BEFORE search on Google News and JSTOR fails to find any mentions of "Bigger Picture Malta." Chetsford (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article appears to be business listing, and is promotional in tone, per WP:NOT. As mentioned above, fails GNG and NCORP. I was able to get a few links from Google search, but they seem to be user-generated business listings or blog-type of pages, so there isn't anything to that can help us to improve this article and establish notability. KCVelaga (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_14&oldid=1142617067"