Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 August	9 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Beth Sales[edit]

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

She's a publicist so her name is out there. What it's not is covered in any depth in reliable sources that I could find. Page was originally created by a sockpuppet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable doesn't merit an article per WP:GNG. W C M_email 12:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are routine for what one would expect of a PR practitioner (e.g. quotes in articles about clients, etc.). Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on my search of the subject. I agree with the Nom and Chetsford. fails WP:NBIO--DBig Xray 18:13, 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 Speedy delete as per G5. GAB^gab 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James "MJ" Tamondong[edit]

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

Seems like borderline A7, but volleyball career seems to make some claim to notability. It does not, however, meet ANYBIO or GNG (there is no volleyball criteria at NSPORT, but if there were I doubt this would meet it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite all of the text, there is no credible claim to notability. What I get from this is the guy played some high school volleyball and carried on with entering a team in a regional league. Aside from that, he does a good job of fitting athletic shoes for customers at a shoe store. There zero coverage in reliable sources and I find it amusing that one of the sources used the article is Yelp. -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Repeated creation of deleted content. See MJ Tamondong. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt - This has been repeatedly recreated under a variety of forms of the name. I previously was involved in some of the AfDs. G5 most certainly applies. Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 13 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. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current Opinion (Current Drugs)[edit]

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

Unsourced article "about" a series of apparently non-notable journals, published by an apparently non-notable publisher. The word "about" is in scare-quotes because actually there is no content in the article, it is just a directory listing of ISSNs. I was unable to find any sources that mention this series (although searching for sources is difficult because there are two other journal series (published by different publishers) with essentially the same name). JBL (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously a notable series of journals from a notable publisher (Current Drugs Ltd., or its former name Current Patents Ltd), all of them (or nearly all) were indexed in the highly selective Index Medicus and had impact factors (indexing in Journal Citation Reports), and several other databases (including Scopus)

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development [1]
Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs (old) [2] +continuation
Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs (new) [3]
- Current Opinion in Anti-infective Investigational Drugs [4]
- Current Opinion in Anti-inflammatory & Immunomodulatry Investigation Drugs [5]
- Current Opinion in Cardiovascular, Pulmonary and Renal Investigational Drugs [6]
- Current Opinion in Central & Peripheral Nervous System Investigational Drugs [7]
- Current Opinion in Oncologic, Endocrine & Metabolic Investigational Drugs [8]
Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics [9]

and pass WP:NJOURNALS. The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry considers Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development important, for instance, and they have pretty respectable H-indices for short-lived journals (e.g. [10]).

Would it be better to have individual entries? Maybe. But Wikipedia is better off with this set index article than without. The alternative is to create an entry on Current Drugs and put this information there. Deletion/Removal of this information is not an improvement to Wikipedia (we cite those journals at least 185 times on Wikipedia, btw).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While they were being published, these journals were included in highly selective databases such as Index Medicus. Given that they have been discontinued after a relatively short run, I would prefer to merge this to the article about the publisher, with the indexing info added and referenced, but unfortunately such an article doesn't exist. The current article is bare-bones, but can (and should) be expanded, but that is not for AfD to solve. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above !votes. If we had more information on the publisher, we could make this into an article about them and rename appropriately. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy with this proposal if there were enough sourceable information to support an article on the publisher. But as far as I can tell, there is 0 information available anywhere about either the journals or the publisher. This seems to present a serious problem with WP:V, for example, and I find it odd that none of the the votes so far have attempted to address this total lack of sourcing. --JBL (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. And there's plenty of sources on the publisher, these are literally the first two links I gave above.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion is not cleanup" would be relevant if the problem was that sources exist but aren't being used properly. I cannot find any evidence that sources exist. Can you? --JBL (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first two links I posted, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To google? There is no usable information there. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 10 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. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Deery[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an actor "best known" for a short film. The tangential fact that the film happens to have won an award does not boost Deery's notability, because Deery was not himself the nominee, and the source cited for the film's award status completely fails to even glancingly mention Deery's name at all — and all of the other notability claims here, his "starring" role in an as yet unreleased film and purported "notoriety" on Imgur, are referenced entirely to primary sources that cannot support notability, not reliable source coverage about Deery in real media. Neither the sourcing present here, nor the substance of what there is to source, are enough to get him over WP:NACTOR. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 344917661X (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and the sources are largely not RS or don't have sufficient depth to allow this BLP to pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time to turn back the flood gates. Not all actors are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 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 keep. Seems a reasonable consensus that criteria 1 and potentially 3 have been satisfied and suitably references, despite its age (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insaaf Ki Dagar Pe[edit]

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

Does not justify WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi User:Vivvt this is an old song from 1961 and still came on charts in 2011. the song is extremely popular. clearly notable as it was listed in top indian charts. and also re-released by several music albums in last 50 years. so Condition #1 and #3 of WP:NSONGS are justified. may I know your specific concern why it fails WP:NSONGS ? {Trivia: this popular song is still being taught to students for patriotic song events, Some of which even I participated and won awards, I still remember the full lyrics :D ) --DBig Xray 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Topping the charts does not justify the notability and that is clearly mentioned in WP:NSONGS#1. The song independently did not win any awards to satisfy #2 and lastly, it has not been independently released. Current article content does not justify its notability. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NSONGS again. Chart rankings and SIGCOV define notability, the latter more so. SIGCOV, WP:NSONGS#1 (charts) and #3 (since it was re-released) apply here.^[1] released even in 2016.^[2]^[3]^[4] The song title has reached a cult status and even used as a phrase in media, which makes it even more notable. ^[5]^[6]^[7] Coverage in books^[8] Top Unforgettable songs ^[9]^[10]^[11] The song still popular now.^[12] . Also remember We are here discussing the Notability of this article. Not its content. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP --DBig Xray 17:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Insaaf Ki Dagar Pe" – via Amazon.
^ "स्वतंत्रता दिवस और ये 20 फिल्मी शेर...- Amarujala Kavya".
^ "Nagpur Mahila Club fetes soldiers' wives, members - Times of India".
^ "'....ये देश है तुम्हारा, नेता तुम्हीं हो कल के'".
^ "इंसाफ की डगर पर : कानून के लिहाज से साल 2017 मील का पत्थर साबित हुआ वीडियो - हिन्दी न्यूज़ वीडियो एनडीटीवी ख़बर". khabar.ndtv.com.
^ "इंसाफ की डगर पर 2017 : न्याय को दिशा देने वाले अदालतों के ऐतिहासिक फैसले".
^ "संपादकीयः इंसाफ की डगर". Jansatta.
^ Author, No. "Rashtriya Filmi Geet". Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd. – via Google Books. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Premchand, Manek (18 July 2018). "The Hindi Music Jukebox: Exploring Unforgettable Songs". Notion Press – via Google Books.
^ Dwyer, Rachel (1 December 2005). "100 Bollywood Films". Roli Books Pvt. Ltd. – via Google Books.
^ Bharatan, Raju (14 April 2014). "Naushadnama: The Life and Music of Naushad". Hay House, Inc – via Google Books.
^ Rag, Pankaj (10 August 2018). "Dhuno Ki Yatra". Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt Ltd – via Google Books.

Keep passes WP:NSONGS. Being described as one of "unforgettable songs" shows the relevance. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DBigXray. Songs that chart are notable. James500 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Vivvt in that charting, by itself, is not enough. However, the song continues to track in modern media, more than 50 years after it was created. The media mentions are a mirror of what society feels. After reviewing the various references provided by DBigXray, I feel this should be kept. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per links provided by DBigXray above , and also passes WP:NSONGS . Kpg jhp jm 15:48, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humma Humma[edit]

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

Does not justify WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi User:Vivvt this is a combined article for both the old song from Bombay which was clearly notable as it was listed in top indian charts. and also re-released by a movie. so Condition #1 and #3 of WP:NSONGS are justified. may I know your specific concern why it fails WP:NSONGS ? --DBig Xray 12:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Topping the charts does not justify the notability and that is clearly mentioned in WP:NSONGS#1. The song independently did not win any awards to satisfy #2 and lastly, it has not been independently released. It was remixed and released into film's soundtrack. Plus, look at the article for now. Nothing it mentions other than its original and remake with 2 spam links for lyrics. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NSONGS again. Chart rankings and SIGCOV define notability, the latter more so. SIGCOV, WP:NSONGS#1 (charts) and #3 (since it was re-released) apply here. The song is an AR Rahman's cult classic^[1] . AR Rahman's superhit song Humma Humma from the 1995 Mani Ratnam film Bombay is a classic in the truest sense of the word. Here are the sources ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] --DBig Xray 16:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are here discussing the Notability of this article. Not its content. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP--DBig Xray 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Watch: This sitar cover of AR Rahman's cult classic 'Humma Humma' is just magical". 25 April 2017.
^ Gulazāra; Nihalani, Govind; Chatterjee, Saibal (10 August 2018). "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema". Popular Prakashan – via Google Books.
^ "Humma Humma: Remo Fernandes damns the OK Jaanu song as pale, insipid". 17 December 2016.
^ "Remo is right in criticising Humma Humma: Remake composer Tanishk Bagchi". 21 December 2016.
^ "Humma Humma to Tamma Tamma — he's Bolly's music man of the moment. Meet Calcutta boy Tanishk Bagchi".
^ "Watch: This sitar cover of AR Rahman's cult classic 'Humma Humma' is just magical". 25 April 2017.
^ "A.R.REHMAN Special "humma Humma" Price in India - Buy A.R.REHMAN Special "humma Humma" online at Flipkart.com". Flipkart.com.

I am arguing 4 points to keep this.

WP:NSONGS#1 Top charts over several years. (see sources above)
WP:NSONGS#3 re released by another notable artist (in a movie)
WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING
WP:NARTIST's notable work Artist here being AR Rahman --DBig Xray 15:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE was not tried. I can just echo what has been said above. I also agree that AfD is not for cleanup. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DBigXray. Songs that chart are notable. James500 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NSONG as a charting hit with substantial coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 12 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. While there may be some dispute as to whether charting alone is sufficient for notability, it certainly aids it, and with suitable referencing the various notability grounds appear to be met. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aao Huzoor Tumko[edit]

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

Does not justify WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi User:Vivvt this is old song from 1968 which was clearly notable as it was listed in top indian charts over the years. and also re-released by many music albums, one notable recent release by Karunesh here [11] in 2000 as song titles "Punjab". so Condition #1 and #3 of WP:NSONGS are justified. may I know your specific concern why it fails WP:NSONGS ? (off topic: Please do listen the song Punjab I linked, its a good one.) --DBig Xray 12:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Topping the charts does not justify the notability and that is clearly mentioned in WP:NSONGS#1. The song independently did not win any awards to satisfy #2. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NSONGS again. Chart rankings and SIGCOV define notability, the latter more so. SIGCOV, WP:NSONGS#1 (charts) and #3 (since it was re-released) apply here.We are here discussing the Notability of this article. Not its content. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP--DBig Xray 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what #1 says exactly (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) - Vivvt (Talk) 17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment again, carefully. I am arguing 3(now 4) points to keep this. Let me enlist them again pointwise.

WP:NSONGS#1 Top charts over several years. (see sources below)
WP:NSONGS#3 re released by another notable artist Karunesh.^[1] The album won American record chart New Age Reporter's Best Dance/Dub/Club Album award in 2007.^[2]
WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]
WP:NARTIST's notable work Artist Asha Bhonsle's top 5 songs per these sources. ^[10]^[3]

References

^ "Global Spirit - world fusion music by Karunesh". www.karuneshmusic.com.
^ "NAR 2007 Lifestyle Music Award Winners". www.zonemusicreporter.com.
^ ^a ^b Bose, Ishani (8 September 2017). "Happy Birthday Ashaji: 10 Evergreen Songs By The Melody Queen".
^ "पुण्यतिथि विशेष: फुटबॉलर जिसके गीतों के बिना प्रेम पत्र अधूरे रहते हैं". Firstpost Hindi.
^ "जब ओपी नैयर के गाने आकाशवाणी ने बैन कर दिए थे". Firstpost Hindi.
^ "OP Nayyar and RD Burman: The magicians in Asha Bhosle's life". 8 September 2016.
^ "Asha Bhosle: I have sung all sorts of weird songs".
^ Iyengar, Shriram. "10 songs that capture the rhythm of OP Nayyar – Death anniversary special". Cinestaan.
^ Thombare, Suparna. "10 memorable songs featuring Babita – 70th birthday special". Cinestaan.
^ "Top 5 songs of Asha Bhosle". 8 September 2015.

Keep Per above. No argument against the established notability was provided by nom. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DBigXray. Songs that chart are notable. James500 (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSONG as a charting hit song with extensive coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable music article that passes WP:NSONGS and has a lot of coverage of sources .

Kpg jhp jm 01:50, 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. – Joe (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Meri Dance Dance[edit]

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

Does not satisfy a single criteria of WP:NSONGS. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, this song cannot be deleted because it could be merged and redirected to Dance Dance (1987 film), the film of which it is part. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this 1980s song Per following --DBig Xray 21:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS#3 re released in a movie album Daddy in 2017 ^[1]
WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[1]^[5]
WP:NARTIST's signature work The song is by "Bappi Lahiri’s ^[1]--DBig Xray 21:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Staff, Scroll. "'Daddy' song 'Zindagi Meri Dance Dance' brings Bappi Lahiri's discarded tune back to life".
^ Hungama, Bollywood (7 August 2017). "30 saal baad - Mithun Chakraborty's disco song 'Zindagi Meri Dance' recreated for Arjun Rampal's Daddy - Bollywood Hungama".
^ "Daddy song Zindagi Meri Dance Dance is a perfect throwback to everything retro. Watch video". 4 August 2017.
^ "Watch: Arjun Rampal's 'Zindagi Meri Dance Dance' brings the 1980s back with a bang!". 4 August 2017.
^ "Zindagi Meri Dance Dance Song - DADDY Film - Arjun Rampal". 4 August 2017.

Keep per DBigXray. Satisfies NSONG and GNG. James500 (talk) 01:03, 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. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Munn[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable television actress. Quis separabit? 20:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – main role in three separate TV series (over decades), and a fourth significant role on One Tree Hill. That's pretty much the definition of meeting WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article certainly could use some references and pruning, quick search finds confirmation of significant roles in multiple notable TV shows, thereby meeting WP:NACTOR#1. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Believe passes WP:NACTOR — as detailed above — but sourcing needs improvement. Eagleash (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People magazine alone is not enough to build an article on. We need better sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-exposed and well-reported enough that a reader might reasonably expect to find an article on this subject here. bd2412 T 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep Ok she's not Julia Roberts, but she's famous enough. Two main cast credits on shows of significance, and a slew of other credits, as well as time in theatre. WP:NACTOR #1 is met. I haven't gone through every news story here, but there appears to be continuing coverage of her. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:NACTOR but needs additional sourcing. She is popular and has worked on major television shows BetaN2 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of NACTOR (a leading role in two or more major television projects or motion pictures). Chetsford (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems fairly well-known and appears to pass WP:NACTOR--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article definitely needs more sources but it passes WP:NACTOR . Kpg jhp jm 01:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 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. – Joe (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Manchik[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He's a morbid curiousity, so also WP:NOTNEWS. Including the Reason quote about shaming of third party voters appears to suggest this article pushing a POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's run in enough elections I can't support a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2018. He's clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article; the coverage consists of Ballotpedia (and similar directories of candidate), local [12] or trivial mentions, and news of the weird coverage. WP:NPOL is not met, and there's no coverage that's not about a campaign. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. There is sufficient RS coverage to overcome. NPOL says "local political figures who have received significant press coverage", this guy merits this based on current citations, but certainly under GNG if not NPOL. I haven't even included in the article that he was the #1 trending Twitter topic on U.S. national election day. There is a serious and objective candidate platform analysis in Mansfield News Journal alongside the D and R candidates, for instance. Also, "morbid curiousity" or "news of the weird" are not policy based objections: we have FAs about weird things and people who claim all sorts of ancestries. Even a community-judged notable Pleiadian. And BTW this is international coverage now including The Independent, so scratch the argument that his notability is "merely local". ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Trending topics on Twitter = WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:LASTING impact of this morbid curiosity. And "U.S. national election day" is the first Tuesday of November (unless that's Nov. 1, in which case election day is Nov. 8). This past Tuesday was a primary election day with contests in only four of the 50 states. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think his ~~notoriety~~ notability will last, since he's vowed to run again for office, but much of the coverage is condescending. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:NOTNEWS. Being a trending topic for a news cycle is different than being an encyclopedic topic. Marquardtika (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't normally keep losing candidates who aren't otherwise notable under WP:BLP1E amongst other things. He doesn't independently pass WP:GNG and he was only notable for a couple news cycles. As noted what sigcov of him existed was mostly for curiosity reasons as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The election was notable, and got more coverage because it was a special election. The coverage was of the election, not of Manchik as an individual. Coverage that mentions someone in the light of an election does not establish notability for them, and that is the only type of coverage that Manchik received.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to the special election that he was a candidate in. As with many other candidates for office that either haven't won or didn't win the general election (Jane Raybould, Bill Lee (Tennessee politician), Rebekah Kennedy, etc.) they've all been redirected to the race where they were a candidate in (Not a point that would help for deletion/redirection but just examples of prior failed candidates whose articles were deleted). Manchik did not spoil the election, he didn't even receive 1,500 votes nor did he receive any national attention unlike the Democrat and Republican. The article is short and has no information that anyone can't infer just by looking at the election results (didn't spoil, nobody knew who he was, etc.). My points make a valid argument, I would think. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring public interest who readers will still be looking for ten years from now. GNG does not mean that we keep an article about every single person whose name happens to pop up in the news cycle for a day or two — we judge notability on the basis of enduring impact, and don't just keep everybody who can show two or more media hits. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES; there is no inherent notability for being a political candidate and coverage limited to his candidacy - while robust - is routine for purposes of WP (albeit odd). Chetsford (talk) 23:44, 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. – Joe (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bygdøfergene[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Norwegian Wikipedia has no article about this. » Shadowowl | talk 20:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per complete failure to satisfy WP:NCORP. Other than the in-article ref that seems to be a headline and a photo, nothing seems to crop up at all that is news etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree as there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:48, 13 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Saran Das[edit]

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

Cant find much about him. A quick google search shows that he is not a current MP for his Constituency and our wikipedia page also doesn't show him as a current or former MP.

Even if he is a real figure and the claims of the article are true. He is an unelected member of regional party and hence fails WP:POLITICIAN Razer(talk) 20:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on BLP sourcing grounds and WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer talk 06:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is a run of the mill party official, not an elected politician. His connections to such and such persons don't matter here. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failure of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ok, he was never (near as we can tell) an MP. He might have been significant in local politics (second bullet point of NPOLITICIAN) but there's nothing to go on in the article nor in searches that I did to support that. Did he exist? Yep. Was he notable? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Courville[edit]

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

Completely unknown pseudoacademic. See WP:PROF and WP:BLPFRINGE. Failed these tests. jps (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nom, fails BLPFRINGE and PROF. (How has this lasted so long) -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I prefer a chronology where this was deleted back in 2005 but I'm not going to write a book about it and publish it myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a few mentions him being an associate professor of biochemistry in his brother's 1967 obituary, his wife's 1980 obituary, and his 1996 obituary {so BLP wouldn't apply), but nothing that appears to meet WP:PROF. --tronvillain (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Work has been published by respectable organisations 80.111.16.75 (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per Roxy.∯WBG^converse 10:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he was a real academic, he appears to have been quite run of the mill and had no lasting, major contributions to his field of study. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a man who had a respectable academic career teaching biology, then followed what I would characterize as less as FRINGE,than as an old-fashioned, faith-based path that has been trodden by Christians of scholarly inclination for centuries, attempting to use literary and archaeological evidence - for Egypt in this case - to prove that the Exodus really happened. People who do that can be notable (cf. bishop Ussher,) but Courville's book did not make much of an impact. We could probably support a Category:Academics who have published FRINGE theories (just joking,) but see recent discussions on Talk:Alan Sabrosky, or Linus Pauling as examples.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 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. promo for non-notable, will recreate as redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John James (Michigan politician)[edit]

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

Outside of his candidacy for Senate, there is little notability of this subject. Candidacy for office is not enough to warrant an article dedicated to this individual. SecretName101 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to sign off correctly, but it's just insane that democratic nominees can get their political pages, but we have to delete republicans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalfactjunkie2018 (talk • contribs)

Not a partisan bias. Wikipedia policy generally is to not create articles about people's whose only notability is their candidacy (with a few outstanding examples, such as John Ossoff, who was justified to have his own article due to inordinately heavy media coverage of his candidacy). I first encountered this rule-of-thumb in 2016 when I came across the (then-pending) deletion of an article on Democratic congressional candidate Nancy Rotering. If you know of Democratic candidates with articles not justified by their individual notability, feel free to provide me with a list so that I can examine them and nominate them for deletion.
Wikipedia often beleives the article on the election itself suffices in cases when the candidate is not notable outside of a single election campaign . SecretName101 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018. Coverage such as James has taken the company from $35 million to $137 million in revenue, the site states, and has created 100 jobs in Michigan and elsewhere. is not neutral, and there's no claim of notability; WP:NPOL is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, as it stands, fails a BLP source check (on top of NPOL/GNG). I don't mind a redirect, but I believe I declined a draft of this article earlier today from another user. SportingFlyer talk 06:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 as does not pass WP:NPOL and is promotional, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:35, 9 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. – Joe (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Mayengani[edit]

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

Gossipy promo piece for a musician of questionable notability. Sourcing seems to consist of - excuse my Klatchian - adulatory bullshit. I'm not taking the purely promotional phrasing into account, which could presumably be fixed or removed, but I don't see how they meet WP:NARTIST. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is a chatty essay/fan page, not an encyclopedia article. Even if it were written correctly, there is no evidence he passes as a notable musician, for example, by touring internationally, nor a notable politician, such as getting elected to parliament. I remind the gentle reader that we are a private charity, not a free public web host. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 9 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. Views are mostly split between "keep" and "redirect". The decision of which one to go for can be done outside AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician)[edit]

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

Is he in the news right now? Yes. Does he meet WP:NPOL? Not yet. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, this article should be redirected to the main election page until he wins an election. We do not typically create biographies for candidates until they become elected officials. Yes, his campaign is getting lots of coverage. But he does not yet, as an individual, have standalone notability. Marquardtika (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Marquardtika's rationale but only if he concedes or is declared the loser of the midterm election which just passed. Without elected office he cannot sustain notability based on totality of life experiences. That will change, I am sure, as he is very young. It's just a case of TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point--this is complicated by the fact that the election hasn't been called yet. He could still be certified the winner, and then he would certainly be notable. I don't know how long it will take for the counting of absentee ballots, recount, etc. Hopefully we get official results soon so notability is clearer here. Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really should not take more than two weeks at the most (I hope). Quis separabit? 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot sustain notability you say? That is the funniest thing I have read today. Wp:ntemp says notability doesn't fade away. He also doesn't need to WIN the election to receive enough reliably sourced coverage to achieve wp:notability. Carter2020 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter2020: You misunderstand WP:NTEMP. It's true that notability doesn't fade once established; however, it has not been established in this case as he fails WP:NPOL. Getting coverage for running for office (WP:1E) is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Lots of people get coverage for running for local office but their long-term notability is zero if they don't get continued coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused, Мандичка. Quis separabit? said "Without elected office he cannot sustain notability", but WP:NTEMP says once the coverage of a subject meets WP:Notability requirements, you are forever notable -- that notability doesn't need to be "sustained". So I understand the policy just fine, and Quis separabit? does not. As to the question on if the coverage of O'Connor meets the level for notability, I believe it does. I've never seen so much news coverage for a candidate, especially one who may have already lost. I'm still trying to get through the flood of news stories about the candidate and his campaign. Carter2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to election page for now. If he wins or becomes notable in the future, article can quickly be restored from redirect. Nom pointed out this is the policy, so not sure why AfD was created. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected on July 30, but that redirect was reverted by the article's creator, so I thought an AFD was warranted. Marquardtika (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: - gotcha, thanks for the explanation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. It's WP:TOOSOON. Article can be created if he wins a recount, or wins in November. He's not notable otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates to the US house are not notable for that, and nothing else about O'Connor makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People (and the events they take part in), need to be seen in context. Normally, we wouldn't keep bios from people who loss elections for US congress. I understand that. However, this should be seen in the context of what is happening in US politics. Right now, these special elections are seen by WP:RS as highly significant because they are seen by WP:RS as a key indicator for the political environment under President Trump. Moreover, these events are significant enough, the people involved in them are WP:N, even if they lose. A simple question to ask is this. In WP:10Y, would someone who wants to study this period want these bios or not? We are here to be useful, now and in the future, and not to hold to some firm rules. Moreover, he clearly meets WP:N per the number of sources.Casprings (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the OP cites an essay and not a policy with outcomes. He clearly has the level of national coverage over a sustained amount of time to meet GNG

I'm not sure Paul Hackett would pass AfD (compared to a redirect to Ohio's 2nd congressional district special election, 2005), though I see no reason to have that discussion now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone questions the notability about the special election, and it is always an appropriate outcome to redirect a candidate to the relevant election page. Any relevant biographical information can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is only really notable for his campaign in the Ohio special election, but the coverage of him because of that campaign is blowing up the internet regardless of whether he wins or loses, because his run for that seat is being described as the bellweather - coalmine canary - referendum on what is to come in the November elections. Someone just needs to update his article to reflect the storm of coverage. Carter2020 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ohio's 12th congressional district special election, 2018 for now; this can be revisited in November. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page for now. The article has a lot of sources, but not enough there to pass WP:GNG or WP:10Y at the moment. If coverage is sustained before the election we can revisit this. SportingFlyer talk 06:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. WP:POLOUTCOMES says he isn't inherently notable as a losing candidate (assuming he loses), but that doesn't mean he's inherently non-notable. He's gotten a decent amount of WP:SIGCOV; examples: [13] [14] [15] [16]. –IagoQnsi (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: FYI, WP:POLOUTCOMES is precisely because the flurry of articles given to someone running for political office can typically be discounted as being notable for only one-event (WP:1E). This coverage will disappear if they lose and return to anonymity (unless they run again or do something else). Therefore the long-term coverage is not there and he fails WP:NPOL. Per WP policy, he needs to be notable for something beyond running for office. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:Poloutcomes doesn't disqualify O'Connor at all. Wp:1E says "the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered" which has been HUGE so far. And "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate", and both of those boxes are checked in spades. And Wp:Npol can't be "failed", and isn't applicable in this situation. (It would, however, apply as a KEEP rational if he is declared a winner, which hasn't happened.) Carter2020 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning is not how losing candidates have traditionally been evaluated at AfD. As I recently wrote for WP:Articles for deletion/Pete Stauber, the largest question about whether a candidate becomes independently notable "is whether the coverage of the candidate receives coverage that is unusual (often expressed in whether the coverage makes international news) or (less so) that the candidate is broadly portrayed as being an exemplar of a larger point by multiple national media outlets (either as what they stand for or [lesser] as being innovative in their campaign [either their ads or approach])."

WP:BLP1E is explicit in stating that the "significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." As Мандичка writes above, many candidates for elected office are low-profile individuals except in the context of their campaign for political office. Any details about the individual, polling, and top campaign issues can usually be inserted into the campaign about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IagoQnsi's reasoning. The subject is what we'd call in New York a "county clerk", an elected local political position. WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear that a local politician can be notable if there is sufficiently deep coverage, as is the case here: "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources....'"(blue links removed, emphasis added). Losing a race does not erase notability as shown by major media coverage. There was saturation media coverage for the past two weeks; the President of the United States came to the district and attacked him by name; there is a rare re-count possible. Note well: Win or lose last Tuesday, he's also the candidate in this November's election. He's not going away, and a redirect to the special election will mess up the article for the fall election. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. O'Connor has received significant coverage for the special election, and he holds a local office. These two things together give him sufficient notability. Davey2116 (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, no evidence that coverage will disappear (remember he's running again in the fall). He passes NPOL pretty easily, and even if he failed it, NPOL exists to expand notability, not to restrict it. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page unless he wins now or in November. Not enough sources pass WP:GNG or WP:10Y at the moment. If coverage is sustained before the election we can revisit this. User:politicalfactjunkie2018 talk 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Receives enough coverage in the special election to meet GNG regardless of the result of the general election. Additionally holds a county-level position. These candidate AfDs are interesting, but I think GNG is ultimately met here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to the election page. No notability outside of election, even so it fails WP:NPOL and other notability guidelines. As of now, he appears to be a failed candidate for a major public office. If/when he wins, then the article should be reopened. Redirect to retain article version history. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 09:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well developed and well sourced article. Meets WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 17:59, 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 merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alma O. Taylor[edit]

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

Source searches for independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage have not been fruitful, with reliable source coverage limited to passing mentions and name checks. Sources in the article are not providing much, with [17] providing 4 sentences and [18] being a primary source with only mentions. This source in the article provides significant coverage, but it is published by Brigham Young University, which is entirely owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, some may consider this last source to be primary in nature, and primary sources are not usable to establish notability in English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "collections" source is definitely a secondary source, although it provides a link ("The Diary") to the text of the diary itself, which is a primary source. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidLeeLambert: A problem, though, is that more than one independent source (multiple sources) that provides significant coverage is needed, as per WP:BASIC, not just one. Also, why hasn't the subject received any significant attention from sources that are not affiliated with the LDS church? This reminds me of a situation in which a company reports upon its own personnel and then publishes it, which would be considered as a primary source. It also comes across as a potential WP:SPIP situation, "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 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested in the statement (paragraph 4 in the BYU "About" for the collection) "During the next several weeks many newspaper articles were printed, attacking the missionaries and Mormonism." Maybe someone could track some of those articles down? They would be secondary and independent, might not generally be reliable, might be reliable enough for the purpose of establishing notability of anyone in the missionary-party they named individually. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references to those newspapers are in Brady's 1983 BYU Studies article [19]. They are not significant coverage of this article's subject, being either interviews with Grant (mostly about polygamy) or sensational coverage of an incident in which the group was denied board because of a landlord's disapproval of polygamy. Bakazaka (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan, where subject's in-church notability is already discussed. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have 3 sources. A 4th is provided. The blocking of BYU sources is just absurd. Taylor has no control over BYU especially decades after his death. This nomination if successful would amount to mass blocking of scholarly study on a subject because of the ownership of the university where it was conducted. This is a horrible precedent and needs to be avoided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four sources provided are clearly not independent per WP:IIS, leaving one. Whether or not that one is independent, it's not enough to meet WP:GNG. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan has better sourcing and places this non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) subject in the broader, notable context of LDS activities in Japan. That article is also more even-handed with its historical perspective, noting that the subject's main claim to notability, translating the Book of Mormon into Japanese, had to be redone by Chōkō Ikuta anyway. A merge or redirect makes sense in this situation. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An even broader statement is that every translation of the Book of Mormon into a language other than English, with the exception of Hawaiian and a few other langauges that are totally out of print, done before 1950 or maybe even a little latter, has been totally redone. So some languages have been totally redone multiple times. This has little relevance to Taylor's work, and more to do with broader decisions about the translation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about other translations or languages. List of Book of Mormon translations would be a creative redirect target, but it would lose the even-handed historical context that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan provides. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with Bakazaka to merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan under History section. Deaddebate (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources don't attest to WP:GNG. I don't see any inherent notability of being the first person to translate the Book of Mormon into Japanese, especially as it was translated the same year by a native speaker, which was likely to be a far superior translation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:50, 8 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. The "keep" arguments did not cite policy and were refuted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BetNow[edit]

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

Fails on WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Article has little content still they are promotional rather than informative. Passing mentions in few notable sources do not warrant notability. Hitro talk 11:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 11:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No where near passing WP:NCORP, or even GNG. No reliable, independent, source gives more than a line on the company. Never a good sign on the notability front when the article starts listing where it has received betting odds mentions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - I admit this page is a little bit sparse but I feel it should be included for three reasons. 1. I expect more mentions and features as this a company that is growing rapidly and was one of the first to embrace bitcoin betting. 2. It also is based in a country that doesn't have a lot of their companies mentioned in Wikipedia (Can't figure out how to put in the link to the companies of Curaçao). 3. I think this is worthy of inclusion is in doing research before posting this I saw sites that have pages that have been on Wikipedia for a LONG time just like this one is in its current form, for instance BetOnline and BetUS are equally sparse. Either way though if you guys consider it bad I will try and find more backing documentation Thanks, Cliff-- Clifffonte (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clifffonte:. Unfortunately there are a few issues with those reasons. I'll discuss them in order. 1) That a company may/will gain more mentions isn't a reason to keep it now (as we'd never be able to delete anything, as it would almost always be a reason), articles have to be suitable from the point of their creation. 2) While being related to a less-represented country is a great reason to prioritise writing an article, it doesn't reduce the the corporate notability requirements. 3) The short answer here is that other pages existing can't justify this one. If you could justify from equivalents then we'd either have ever-harder inclusion rules or it would become impossible to justify removing anything.

I do wish you the best of luck in finding better sources - if you do, drop a note here to let us know so that I and any other commentators here can see them :) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (reason) 15:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I agree with to the point that Wikipedia could use more companies from this country plus the references are from big authorities. I searched around and this is a well known site outside of just those listed as well.User:AndrewBOS (talk) 2:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

AndrewBOS, most of the sources are not "intellectually independent" - which usually means they have a self-interest or bias in covering the subject. The ones that aren't barely mention BetNow, and wikipedia requires Significant Coverage from any source used to establish notability. Trying to improve articles relating to a specific country is a good reason to write articles, but doesn't change the level of justification needed to retain it. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 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 per WP:G7. So Why 07:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear and Idiot Romance[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. PROD removed by article author. reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero sourcing available. Non-notable (e) book, by non-notable author, from non-notable publisher. Wikiquote page already deleted. Bunch of content on Commons deleted. Apparently xwiki effort at self promotion. GMG ^talk 17:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. All of 7 Google hits for this self-published work. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear attempt at self-promotion by self-published author, no claim to notability, no coverage, fails WP:GNG, violates WP:COPYVIO unless written by same author, in which case violates WP:COI. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant COI and self promotion per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This book clearly fails to meet the standards that are outlined in the general notability guideline. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable book. I don't see how this would any of the speedy critera, so this discussion probably needs to run the full course. Brad v 01:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
can my article be moved into draft space please? I understand the concerns and am willing to address them over time. I am learning about the wiki policies but my screen does not show "save as draft" it only shows "publish". Tonrene
Speedy delete per GreenMeansGo who has provided the necessary and accurate rationale. The page has since been blanked and CSD U1 tagged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all editors. Also Thanksto Brad v for the encouragement to help me learn. I blanked the page to delete it. Apparently, that doesn't work. Please feel free to delete it. But I would be grateful to get any leads on how to create a draft as opposed to starting with a published page. Do I just leave it in the sandbox? (Tonrene (talk) 05:46, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Concert for Charlottesville[edit]

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

Declined PROD. There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the event. The article contains a grand total of zero references after the concert, and I couldn't find any others. wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable concert. I think is is too early to establish that the concert did not recive continued coverage as the concert has not yet reached its 1 year anniversary, which is the moment these events are most likely to resurface in the press. I have added one source for this event from July 2018, listing it as part of Ariana Grande's history of polical activism. Emass100 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty big benefit concert with A-list lineup, including DMB, Justin Timberlake, Ariana Grande, Pharrell Williams, etc. It doesn't seem appropriate to merge with the Unite the Right rally article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE gives special inclusion criteria for keeping events which fail to meet GNG, and is not a guide listing reasons to delete topics which otherwise pass GNG. The sources cited are extraordinary coverage for a concert. These publications are to a national audience for a small town event, and they explain the event in far more detail than a typical concert would normally be explained, and the sources assign meaning to this beyond what is typical to ascribe to a concert. My guess is that fewer than 1 in 10,000 concerts would get coverage comparable to this. Making a Wikipedia article for such a well covered and unusual event seems aligned with Wikipedia precedent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 11 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Les[edit]

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

Rapper who does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of charting and in-depth coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:51, 8 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 brothels in Nevada. Any salvageable content may be merged from the page history. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bella's Gentlemen's Club[edit]

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

Not seeing any real notability, one blog and a source I am unable to check (but appears to be an overview of prostitution in Nevada, and thus not really about the subject). Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed on the page’s talk page, this article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the article has cited two significant secondary sources, Slate magazine and the Elko Daily Free Press, with details concerning the significance of the brother in a legal and historical context.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [sockpuppet, blocked][reply]

Apart from the blog (which may well fail wp:rs) they all look like trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the Men’s Health interview as well. It’s a significant article. Bella’s does not deserve to be deleted. It’s also a part of the Sex Work Task Force.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [sockpuppet, blocked][reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ranch is a significant part of prostitution in Nevada, which has a unique place in American Law. I agree the article needs improvement but the subject meets notability guidelines so deletion is inappropriate. --John B123 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnB123. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This brothel has 14 sources, all of dubious quality. The sources are either self-published (iUniverse book, Esther Hecht's Blog), unreliable (HappyCabbie's review, Thrillist), local press (Elko Daily Free Press, Las Vegas Courtesan), or include Bella's alongside every other brothel ("A Comprehensive Guide to Nevada Brothels"), not demonstrating it stands out from any other brothel in Nevada. Are all brothels in NV notable? There is only one decent national source, Slate, but it consists of a single picture inside the brothel and no mention of it in the article body - it's a passing mention not in-depth. There is no evidence this brothel stands out from any other brothel, it is not a notable brothel. -- GreenC 13:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been a long time when the article was created. 14 references but not even one is significantly establishing the notability. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation by User:John B123 or anyone else. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[was "Keep"]. It is sourced and is notable as one of few legal brothels in the United States. --Doncram (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no way this should be deleted outright, because it is obvious that it is a valid item in List of brothels in Nevada, and merger to that list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. We are obligated to seek wp:ATDs.
Second, the article has considerably more information than is comfortably merged into the list-article. It is valid for editors of list-articles to split out info to separate articles when the information becomes too much. Here, there is adequate sourcing and the topic is valid as a standalone article, IMHO, too. --Doncram (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should every legal brothel in NV have an article? I'm not aware of a notability guideline for brothels that gives automatic inclusion. The sources for this brothel all problematic as explained above. If legal brothels are notable you shouldn't have trouble producing reliable sources that discuss it in-depth (per WP:GNG) -- that aren't local news, blogs and self-published books. -- GreenC 17:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of legal brothels in Nevada is hugely notable, and, according to the list-article, there are currently just 22 of them; it is very feasible and reasonable to cover all of them in Wikipedia, at least in a list-article, like we do for many types of relatively rare things, e.g. we cover all historic covered bridges and all cobblestone houses. A picture is worth a thousand words; having a separate article allows for more treatment of a place, including presentation of a larger photo than a thumbnail in a list-article (and allows presentation of more photos, though only the one seems available at Commons for this place). --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update from "Keep" to "Delete". There really is not substantial value created in this article, and the fact of the creator being a sockpuppet/disruptor with obnoxious content included in the original creation brings me over the edge here. I literally wrote the essay against using wp:TNT, but this is a case where blowing it up, wp:DENYing the disruption, similar to deleting copyvio, and allowing someone else to start over again some other day seems appropriate. I will update wp:TNTTNT for this kind of exception. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator User:PaleheadedBrushfinch is perma-blocked as a notorious disruptive editor and sock. The article was created about a week ago. -- GreenC 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true, but I can't see how that is relevant? The article should stand or fall on its own merit, not the reputation of its creator. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Argh, disappointing. I see now that it was indeed just recently created, and that in its original form it was not appropriate for the encyclopedia. User:John B123 added infobox and categories and otherwise improved the article into more encyclopedic form (thanks), and GreenC (with mostly negative edits) and I (with just one minor edit) have both also now edited there. --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote to "Delete", with apology to User:John B123, whose investment/improvements I do appreciate. Perhaps you could save a copy, and possibly recreate sometime later, especially if you do find better sourcing. And drop many/most of the existing stuff which was indeed stretching it; I was judging it over the margin but it was still marginal. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Thanks for your kind works, however I'm dismayed that (from your edit summary) sockpuppetry has influenced your decision. --John B123 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, from other experiences I am pretty soured on the effect of sockpuppets and anonymous editors in Wikipedia, who have no accountability and are trolling us, wasting our time one way or another. In the past I would have tried to salvage anything of value, and in general I am an "inclusionist", but nowadays I more strongly prefer to avoid seeming/being a dupe. You're right, I am affected by sockpuppetry, as are we all here in this unnecessary discussion. --Doncram (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The emotive issue of sockpuppetry has been introduced into this article and has influenced people's thinking. As articles should be judged on their own merits, not on the wrongdoings of the creator, this discussion is now pointless. Any consensus reached would be a prime candidate for a WP:DELREVIEW. --John B123 (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Whilst I fully support WP's notability requirements and can't see how the criteria of assessing notability could be improved while still keeping it a relatively simple test, the 'one size fits all' approach does throw up anomalies (as one size solutions often do). Specifically in this case, clients of Nevada tend to fall into two types (in this context). Some go to them almost for bragging rights, eg if Dennis Hof's Love Ranch comes up in conversation they can say "I've been there". Others want to visit a prostitute without anybody knowing and discretion is the most important requirement. The Love ranch and similar establishment court publicity and go out of their way to stage publicity stunts. Others, such as Bella's shy away from being in the public eye as their clientele are after discretion. This makes it easy to establish notability for the love ranch, but difficult to do the same for Bella's. However in regard to the importance they play in prostitution in Nevada there is very little to choose between them, both are nowhere near as important as say the Mustang Ranch, which although meets the notability requirement, on a scale of notability judged by WP standards is a distant second to the Love ranch. --John B123 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Prostitution in Nevada. While I commend John B123 for expanding the article, the sources seem still to be too much about the Nevada sex industry generally and towards the sensationalist / tabloid end. I think a paragraph in the main article (with appropriate sources) should suffice, and may be a sufficient compromise to everyone upthread. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 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 Speedy delete as a recreation of the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–2019 Hashtag United season. Hut 8.5 21:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-19 Hashtag United F.C. season[edit]

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

Article on a club season for a club playing at the tenth level of the English football pyramid. This clearly fails WP:NSEASONS (see this recent AfD on a club playing at the fifth level). Was prodded, but the prod was removed without a reason being given by an account with 11 edits.

I suspect this AfD may well attract a lot of comments from IPs, SPAs and new/little used accounts (the main article was recently protected due to concerns over editing patterns), so this should be taken into account by the closing admin. Number 5 7 15:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - clearly playing well below the level at which season articles are appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS; possibly Speedy delete as recreation of article previously AfD'd (under 2018–2019 rather than 2018-19). OZOO (t) (c) 15:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 15:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per widespread consensus involving seasons for non-professional teams and nom. Comment as well - if this page gets deleted, we should probably delete Template:Hashtag United F.C. and Template:Hashtag United F.C. seasons, seeing as though this season is the only useful navigational link in them. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have believe this is G4 delete. I tagged for speedy deletion per previous AfD. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Govvy/Lugnuts, I hadn't noticed this had been previously created/deleted at a slightly different title. I see someone's G4'd it. Number 5 7 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The season of a team playing at counties league level is never likely to be notable and as noted this has effectively been deleted before. Dunarc (talk) 18:41, 8 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. AFD created by a sock and clearly notable, so NACing per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Jalaeipour[edit]

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

"He received his bachelor and masters’ degrees in sociology at the University of Tehran with a privileged ranking in the year 1366 to 1371." However, he is claimed to be alive. Furthermore, almost all the content in the article is unsourced. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs curiosity I'm not weighing in at this point on the AFD itself but the years are Iranian (I'm not sure of the exact name of this specific calendar) so it was likely some time in the 1900's. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was roughly 1945. So it's totally reasonable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad I didn't ever expect to learn about Iranian years on Wikipedia, thank you for explaining this to me, makes more sense now. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep He was the governor of Mahabad in the 1980's, so I'd think that alone satisfies at least WP:NPOL and published several of the top reformist papers. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:41, 8 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. Redirecting this would require first sorting out whether the redirect is factually correct. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacle Island, Warwick, Bermuda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Article provides no further information except for the fact that it exists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything which would help expand the article. Doesn't help there's a more popular Spectacle Island near Boston, Massachusetts. SportingFlyer talk 01:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likely Delete. There are two Spectacle Islands, neither in Warwick Parish.[20][21] The one in Southampton Parish -- unmarked on GMaps for some reason -- helps form Jew's Bay.[22][23] The one in Paget Parish -- "Specacle Island" on Gmaps -- forms part of the boundary of Hamilton Harbour,[24] and was allegedly the birthplace of Jenaya Wade-Fray [25] Sources disagree which used to be known as Hunt's Island, the location of the 1844 Bermuda Native Yacht Club, Bermuda's first yacht club[26][27] but it appears likely that the Southampton one is the right one. Warwick Parish is more proximate to the Southampton one, but the coordinates presented are for the Paget one. Worse, White's Island also used to be known as Hunt's Island (so sources referring to Hunt's can't be used unthinkingly). I wouldn't object to redirection to and capsule coverage at List of islands of Bermuda, if unimpeachable sources were to show that at one time one of these islands were administratively in Warwick, but coverage of the minor islands at that article would require a bunch of work to turn into a more fully-featured list or even more a Fully Featured List. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to List of islands of Bermuda#Spectacle Island, Warwick, its named/anchored row in the fine new table in the list-article, well on its way to becoming Fully Featured. :) An island is a geographic feature, so could arguably be presumed notable, but we don't need a separate article for each one unless/until there is more to say. Note the row includes coordinates from the article, which definitely do point to an island in Bermuda; I am assuming this is a real island, not a fraud, though the row's description column could be tagged as needing source or whatever. ~~I don't know how to see parish boundaries (like MapQuest shows counties in the U.S.).~~’’map now at Talk of list-article supports this location being in Warwick.’m Locations can be seen in linked GeoGroup maps. Help further developing the excelllent table would be appreciated. --Doncram (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Assuming this AFD closes "Redirect", following this example it would be appropriate IMHO to redirect Theta Island, Bermuda to its row, List of islands of Bermuda#Theta Island, and so on for more islands currently having minimalistic articles, without requiring another AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: It is simply better for readers about any of these islands to arrive at the row in the list-article, so that they can see relative information and have perspective about the island of their primary interest, including by seeing it on a map of all of them. An island should be split out to a separate article only if absolutely necessary. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Arion[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Vortekz[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant find anything that isnt routine coverage - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am not an expert on wrestling and therefore might have missed something, I'm unable to find coverage that isn't routine in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Arion[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am not an expert on professional wrestling, I'm unable to find substantive, ie non-routine, coverage in independent reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:57, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wavell Starr[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found [28] and [29] but unsure if its enough for GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Galatz beat me to it. I find it a little shaky that someone who was in this many dark matches doesn't meet GNG requirements. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Minor league wrestler and lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. The two sources mentioned by Galatz are the same article, which was local coverage to begin with.Sandals1 (talk) 15:49, 9 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One2many[edit]

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

Contested prod. Sources used either barely mention or do not mention the subject at all. Sources available seem to be entirely passing mention, press releases, and official or generic unreliable websites. Likely conflict of interest/advertising. GMG ^talk 13:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of references appear to consist of press releases and sales announcements, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:03, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Sussman[edit]

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

Non-notable announcer. I could not locate any reliable sources to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. He is now a tennis coach, but if he was notable before as an announcer and executive, then "once notable, always notable" applies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being head tennis coach at even the top ranked colleges does not make one notable, Marist College even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Per WP:WHYN, significant coverage is needed "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." This is not encyclopedic enough to WP:IAR and keep an article that will never be more useful than a stub with past stints listed and quotes more fitting for Wikiquote.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Adimefe[edit]

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

Author/host/promoter of insufficient notability. Lots of incidental mentions, self-promotion, little dribs and drabs, and amateur blog write-ups. I get that it is difficult to make big media splashes as a creative guy in Nigeria, but a certain level of in-depth coverage IS required for a WP article, and this doesn't meet the bar. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked pretty hard, couldn't find significant coverage. Would be happy to be proven wrong with some links, but my searches turned up nothing. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:40, 9 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition Happiness[edit]

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

This purports to be an article about a film, but none of the references given mention the film. Here is mention of the film at IMDB. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Oulds[edit]

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

Notable only for being Director of the Bruges Group, which has its own article. Any significant press mentions appear to be when he is speaking on behalf of that organisation, and I believe the Bruges Group article covers this appropriately.

His career as a journalist and author is not notable. As a politician, it is not notable in itself to be a councillor or cabinet member in a local authority, nor is it notable to be a prospective parliamentary candidate. Being a standard bearer for the RBL certainly is not notable. Shritwod (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article hands him an automatic "inherently notable" freebie just because he exists, but the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG: it's far too dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones — a person is not notable as a company director just because the fact can technically be referenced to the company's own self-published website about itself, and neither is he notable as a writer just because the fact that he wrote a book can be metareferenced to itself — but the few sources which are actually reliable ones just make him a WP:BLP1E rather than a ten-year test passing topic of enduring permanent notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for the books, and found almost no citations, or press coverage, fails WP:AUTHOR. His political career is minor and locak, and he fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Self-Titled Tour (Dua Lipa)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Only routine coverage. --wooden superman 08:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTOUR. It appears to be a robust article but it is almost entirely fancruft about dates and set lists, and all media sources about the tour are merely announcements of upcoming shows, with no news about any particular notable show or notability for the tour as an entity in itself. The tour's existence can be mentioned briefly at the respective album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:16, 12 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 - procedural close - nominated by ban evading sockpuppet. Nick (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Jenkins[edit]

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

In my opinion, I do not think this meets Wikipedias notability guidelines for academics or WP:BIO (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:57, 8 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 Manappally. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Salem Orthodox Church, Manappally[edit]

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

No sources found after an extensive search for sources on Google. I don't know Malayalam and neither have I access to sources specifically pertaining to the South Indian christian community. In its current state I believe that the article does not meet GNG. Regards — F R ⁺ 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overall I don't think there sis enough to make this church notable. You could possibly Redirect to ~~St. Mary's Salem Orthodox Church, Manappally~~ Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church since they appear to be connected. GameInfirmary Talk 11:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect link above is pointed to same. perhaps you meant Manappally--DBig Xray 12:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the redirect link. The article mention it is a part of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church so I figure it should be redirected there. Sorry about not linking correctly in the first place. GameInfirmary Talk 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manappally. I am ok for delete as well. The small church of the village is not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to lack of independent coverage. With this edit I have already copied any useful information to the village article. --DBig Xray 12:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FR30799386:@DBigXray:@Gameinfirmary:Kindly please do not delete this article. Because this article is needed. Kindly, do not to reduce it into a redirect. We can improve the article by adding somemore content. Thank you.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:@DBigXray:@Gameinfirmary:I added some improvements to the article. Kindly please see it. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: While there isn't much content on the page to begin with, the issue is notability GNG. GameInfirmary Talk 13:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Path slopu, It is being discussed if the Church merits its own separate Article or it deserved to be added to Manappally article. If you can provide links of New website (in any language) or newspaper clippings or Books that talk about this church in detail, then we can keep the church article. as of now even after you add lot of stuff it is still failing our wiki policies of WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Hope you read the links i posted to understand the actual problem. --DBig Xray 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu - Pictures and other content won't help right now, what you need to prove is that the subject meets WP:GNG and is worth to have a full-fledged article on Wikipedia. For that I would recommend you to devote all your energy to searching for atleast two high quality books, newspaper articles mentioning the church. However please keep in mind that the authors of those news articles and books must not be affiliated to the church. — F R ⁺ 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S : I have gone through some of the other church related articles that you have created and I find that they seem to lack even one independent source. I suggest that you find and add at-least one independent source for them. — F R ⁺ 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (rather than redirect) to Manappally. That is a town of 22000+ population. The merger would in fact consist of adding the picture in the subject to the target, which already has a sentence on the church. A lot would needed to establish that the church was independently notable, but merging to the place where a church is can often be a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron I also copied that image and 1 line of useful info to the target Village article, paving the way for a Redirect. --DBig Xray 18:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now Redirect as the merger has been done. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no problems whatsoever in a redirect/merge being effected provided only sourced statements are included. The article may be kept as redirect. — F R ⁺ 17:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:@DBigXray:@Gameinfirmary:I added some more citations to the page. Kindly please see that.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu:, the links you added only help to confirm the existence of this church. The Question that needs to be addressed here is a lack of reliable sources (WP:RS). just adding more of self published sources(WP:SPS) even if 100 will not help the article establish its notability (WP:N). --DBig Xray 13:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu - You seriously need to read all the stuff being linked here. The general notability guidlines which are the major criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia clearly state that articles, newspapers etc written by someone affiliated to the subject doesn't count as a reliable source. — F R ⁺ 06:00, 10 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. Enigma^msg 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Disability Forum[edit]

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

written like an advertisement, needs additional citations for verification, single sourced, fails notability. Triplecaña (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for reliable sources yields mostly promotional websites, as well as a few press releases and articles which mention it in passing. Doesn't seem like enough for notability purposes and I can't see how this would be written as a WP:NPOV article with the lack of non-promotional outside coverage. Gilded Snail (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion. Such article with such promotional tone. If it was AfC, it won't be anywhere near to be accepted. Nominator should have tagged for CSD rather than AfD. EROS ^message 15:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disability Standard as that is basically the only thing this organization is known for. Some of the content of this article may be suitable for merging into the Disability Standard article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above analysis, references fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 13 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 - procedural close - nominated by ban evading sockpuppet. Nick (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Green[edit]

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

I do not think this meets Wikipedias notability guidelines for academics or WP:BIO (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets criterion 6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati Question: Which major academic institution or major academic society and what post. Can you give citations please? (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati If you refer to her presidency of the Australasian Association of Philosophy, In my opinion that Association does not qualify as a major academic institution or major academic society. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Association of Philosophy is the most important philosophical society in Australia. I think you are not familiar with the deletion process. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute. The debate is not a vote. Then your edit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour does not contribute to the discussion. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati Comment:

"Australasian Association of Philosophy is the most important philosophical society in Australia" - why do you think that it is the most important philosophical society in Australia?
"Then your edit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour does not contribute to the discussion" - I didn't feel it was necessary to contribute towards the discussion as I think the article is eligible for csd. Furthermore, what is your connection to the subject of that article?

Thank you for taking your time to reply, I appreciate it. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 12:02, 8 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. Enigma^msg 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasan Adibi[edit]

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

An early career researcher in mobile health, most of whose claims of notability at this stage are short of the specific criteria at WP:NPROF. If there is one direction where notability can be sought, this is in the impact that their research has had on the academic discipline. This is difficult to evaluate, but some hints can be gleaned from their citation count [30]: at 1011 this is relatively high, but – even if we ignore the fact that almost a third of the citations are to a co-authored survey paper – for such an apparently trendy area, this is not high enough by itself to confer notability. The article was previously deleted (after a discussion from 2014), and the notability was briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators#Sasan Adibi and at Talk:Sasan Adibi#Contested deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, it was deleted back in 2014, and there doesn't appear to be anything new which should alter that result. As Uanfala has pointed out, the citation count is marginal, with the single largest, and only really significant count of 318 was for a multi-authored paper, and add to that the lack of prominent academic positions, they fail WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt blatantly promotional. The long list of EL is a tell. Please remove this pollution from mainspace with alacrity. Given that this is the second time we have shovelled out the trash on this topic, please salt. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's appropriate to salt an article just because it was re-created once, a couple years after the first deletion. Also, this is an early career academic, so notability can change in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:03, 10 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 deleted by me per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beats Fitness Studio[edit]

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

Non notable company. Local chain of a few gyms, without relevant coverage for notability. Some indication of marketing language/unsourced claims. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 8 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. I would strongly suggest that the folks involved here examine the question of whether the material is better suited to an article on the founder of this company. Vanamonde (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Capital[edit]

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

Delete A promotional article on a run-of-the-mill VC firm. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a substitute for a corporate web page nor is it a Yellow Pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple Google search shows this passes WP:GNG. An extra consideration for those who don't work with investor articles - Wikipedia is very weak on VC and private equity firms. They don't like the attention. Calling this promotional is incorrect - the firm likely doesn't want this article here. Why do you suppose there's no Vinnie Smith article, despite this coverage? [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] etc. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Tim, the very idea that firms don't want articles here is ironic given that recently some VCs complained in a newspaper in the UK that their articles were being deleted. It appears that many VC articles also rely on "inherited notability" - perhaps one of their partners is notable in their own right or perhaps the firm have invested in notable companies - but that doesn't translate to the VC company being notable themselves. Also, we have debated the criteria for notability for organizations and companies and unless enough people believe VC companies deserve special criteria, then we expect articles that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP to be available. None of those references you've selected meet the criteria for establishing notability. This Mercury News reference is based on an interview with a company officer and contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion (because the focus of the article is Vinny, not the company), fails WP:ORGIND. The OCR reference is also about Vinny. Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The OCBJ reference is a profile on Vinny, Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. THe WSJ reference is .. about Vinny. (I'm seeing a pattern) Selling his house. Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Business Insider UK reference is also about Vinny selling his house (you do realise this article isn't about Vinny, right?) and Toba gets mentioned in the context of "Venture capitalist Vinny Smith, founder of Toba Capital, has placed his riverfront estate in Oakley, Utah, on the market for $30 million." Fails everything but especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTINHERIT. The socaltech reference is based on a company announcement that one of its portfolio companies was acquired, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The bizjournals reference is another about Vinny selling his house. Toba gets mentioned in the context of Vinny Smith now runs Toba Capital, a venture capital firm in San Francisco and Newport Beach, but he is best known locally as the former chief executive and chairman of San Francisco-based Quest Software. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the OregonLive reference is based on a company announcement with interviews from connected sources, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that UK article you are talking about. I actually alerted two of the closing editors on their talk pages that they were "famous"! For Toba, I added some more media coverage about the company. Several sources say the founder is publicity shy, so the filings about investments are about as much coverage as you'll find. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question is the article about the company or about Vinny Smith? All of the sources are about Smith with pasig mentions of the company. If Smith is notable, then by all means write an article about him, but not all of his ventures will inherit that notability. Doesn’t look like the company has really done anything notable other than get founded by a potentially notable person. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 23:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable enough. I thought someone else would have done one by now. I might still, but there's enough coverage for the company also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are passing metions, routine funding news, and / or WP:SPIP. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a deletionist, and I'm an inclusionist, yet we've found consensus on more than a few articles. Nonetheless, discounting coverage in the The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and San Jose Mercury News as routine suggests you've set the bar so high that few companies would meet it. Also, the closing administrator will note that funding announcements, rather than being promotional, are to be expected, as that's what the company does as a venture capital company. The nominator has proposed that the largest venture capital company in Orange County, California, with $800M under investment, is run of the mill. I added their funding amount to the lede so there'd be no question of notability. I also just added news of two more deals, including one with drink company True, which just used some of the funding to buy the assets of defunct meal kit provider Chef'd. [[39]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tis a real pity that some editors feel the need to label themselves (and others) as either "deletionist" or "inclusionist". Makes me wonder why we bother to have policies and guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policies can be useful guidelines also. A good one is WP:BEFORE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more media coverage. I keep finding more the more I look. Going back to your point on policies, I don't think it's a pity that we approach these articles with a different perspective - that's what finding consensus is all about. After successfully debating famously heavy deletionists like SwisterTwister and Light2021 and saving many articles, I'm very comfortable with my judgement and instinct. In using the deletionist label, I was actually referring to K.e.coffman. We've interacted in the AfD forum more, and his delete votes are at about 80%. I just checked yours, and deletes are at 97.4%. I'm at about 40%. I didn't create the labels you dislike, but just looking at the numbers, they support how the labels are used.. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find stats can be misleading when taken out of context (plus that's an analysis of the latest 200 !votes). For example, it could be argued that the stat showing how often a !vote agreed with consensus to be the most relevant. I agreed with consensus 84.8% of the time (93.8% without considering No Consensus) and have !voted in 1,485 AfDs. Yours is 73.3% (84.9% without considering No Consensus) after !voting in 485 AfDs. There are a number of explanations but both our stats show a high degree of !voting according to the general consensus and therefore with an understanding of relevant policies/guidelines (your blip above excepted). Therefore despite my overwhelming "delete" !vote history and the labels you are attempting to affix, it may be simply that within the last 200 AfDs, the articles simply didn't meet the requirements for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both have good track records. I just can’t figure out why you don’t have more keeps. 97% of the articles at AfD aren’t deletes. Is it possible you are just avoiding clear keeps, for some reason, thinking perhaps your vote isn’t needed? With this one, you can still withdraw your nomination - I can’t imagine any closer is going to delete an article about an almost Billion dollar company, and the largest one of its kind in one of the richest counties in the US. I can add more coverage but at some point want to move on. Out of curiousity, take a look at the handful of articles for which I voted delete yet were kept (pure keeps, not no consensus closes). I bet you’d probably agree with all my votes for those. Many of those closes still surprise me. Cheers, and see you in the AfD arena. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... without references that meet the criteria for establishing notability (according to policies and guidelines) then I can't see why I need to reconsider my !vote. You say that you can't see a closer deleting an article about an almost billion dollar company - but it has happened before and it will happen again simply because we rely on intellectually independent references for organizations/companies, not PRIMARY sources (or other sources that rely on PRIMARY sources). Even the $800million "under investment" number comes from a PRIMARY source. Also, I work nearly exclusively in AfDs relating to companies/organizations and the vast majority of those articles are spam and/or do not have intellectually-independent sources to establish notability. Like this one. :-) We'll lock horns again I'm sure... HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No horn locking - it's all good - we're committed editors passionate about making the site better, just with different approaches. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like many non-notable VC's it looks like it is tying to inherit notability from its investments. And from Vinny Smith in this case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's an $800M investment company, the largest venture capital company in Orange County, the sixth most populated county in the United States. The significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified meets WP:NCORP. Please state a policy-based opinion for deletion. The specific targeting of venture capital companies regardless of notability appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT? It now has notability based on population of surrounding area? Take it from someone who grew up near Sand Hill Road, $800m-$1b for a VC in 2018 is not that much. The fact that it gives away that much but still there's not much written about it attests to it not being that notable. Seems pretty clear all the coverage is about Vinny Smith so make an article about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading me wrong. Coverage notes that it's the largest VC in the entire county. It's a large county - not like the largest VC in South Dakota. Anything about the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s borderline absurd. The location is irrelevant. Would it be less notable if it was the largest VC in New York County, San Mateo County, San Francisco County or Santa Clara County, all of which are smaller? And what dollar value would you require if it was in South Dakota but was an early stage investor in companies like Facebook or Google? If it truly is the largest VC in the county at that size, it may say more about the lack of VCs in the county than anything else. NonTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 17:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counties are an arbitrary division that mean nothing when it comes to businesses (besides extremely minute tax details) and even less when it comes to Wikipedia notability. VCs does not serve a local population – thus the location of its headquarters and being the largest VC in the county is completely irrelevant. That detail might be important in something like an article on a county library system or sheriff, not in an article on a VC company, but again all that matters here is significant coverage of the corporation itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The media felt this was notable enough to include in the coverage - and I'm just repeating it. But I agree that it can be subjective. Any thoughts about the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage about Toba Capital in this article in The Mercury News titled "With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry" and this article in the Orange County Business Journal titled "Toba Rolls Ahead With String of Exits, IPO" to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The Mercury News article contains quotes from interviews with Toba founder Vinnnie Smith, but there is enough research from the journalist to establish notability:
Former Quest chairman and CEO Vinny Smith, for his part, is plowing the fortune he reaped from the sale [of Quest Software to Michael Dell for $2.4 billion] into a new venture firm called Toba Capital.
In the past few months, Toba has invested in more than a dozen enterprise software startups. On Tuesday, San Jose’s Quorum — a maker of data-recovery software — will become the latest addition to Smith’s portfolio, with an $11 million infusion.
...
And Smith is spreading the wealth beyond the Bay Area. Though he’s recently opened a three-person San Francisco office, his team of software-executives-turned-investors also is deployed in New York, Texas, Minnesota and Southern California.
...
Since getting back into the venture business, he’s attacked things with gusto. Last month, Toba led a $10 million investment in Palo Alto software maker WSO2; last week, Smith’s firm doled out $9 million for Codenvy, a San Francisco startup that helps developers build and test apps via the cloud.
...
As for the firm’s name? It refers to the Toba Eruption, a volcanic explosion in Indonesia more than 70,000 years ago that some scientists believe led to a global winter that supercharged human evolution.
Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources keep returning to Vinny Smith. Delete this and Create an article on Vinny Smith that doesn’t rely amlmost entirely on inherited notability from another, notable subject. But making investments in non-notable companies doesn’t make a company notable. Vinny Smith sounds like a good subject to write on. This company really done much of anything yet. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that making investments in non-notable companies doesn't make a company notable. Receiving significant coverage in reliable sources as has happened here does make a company notable. There is enough significant coverage about Toba Capital itself to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this week's Orange County Business Journal updated Toba's size - the company now has more than $1B invested in about 75 companies. I added the info to the article. The OCBJ article is unfortunately paywalled, but I can email a PDF of the article if anyone would like to read it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure $1 billion is not all that much in the VC world but just sort of typical. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist is the charm
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other comments here. In-depth coverage of company itself is missing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - posting link showing comparison between nominated version and current version, for interested editors (and closers).[[40]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and even NCORP. Refs can have a focus on the CEO and still be considered significant coverage for the company, so long as the company is discussed at length, as occurs in the Mercury piece. From WP:NCORP: "an article on a ... CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the ... CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)". As Cunard noted, from WP:GNG: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pegnawl (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except NCORP also states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You can't just cherry pick bits of policies and guidelines that you like and skip bits that don't support your opinon (well, you obviously can, just don't be surprised when others point it out). What parts of the Mercury reference are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 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 Withdrawn with no other opinions to delete. Apparently WP:PROF#C6 is a thing.... whatever disagreements I have with it are bigger than can be dealt with in an AfD. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Bailey (academic)[edit]

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

"Former college president" does not seem to meet any specific notability criteria. Of the three sources, two are primary (published by the universities for which she worked), and one is said to be a single article in a local newspaper (can't verify, no link provided). It seems the only thing setting her apart from the hundreds of other non-notable college presidents is about termination at WMU (and I removed an unsourced BLPVIO alleging some sort of misconduct)... but even then WP:1EVENT would apply. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - president of not one but two universities, therefore meets item No. 6 of WP:NACADEMIC; additionally there are quite a few articles about her. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. University presidents are automatically notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, point 6: "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6 as argued above. Notability is not temporary; having held these positions is sufficient. In academic biographies, sources affiliated with the subject (e.g., websites of the universities where they studied or worked) are considered reliable for claims not likely to be challenged (e.g., the years when they studied or worked there). XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily arguing that primary sources are not reliable, merely that they lack the independence to establish notability (WP:42). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the fact of her having been president of two universities, which is amply attested in outside sources (e.g., [41][42][43][44][45][46], not to mention the sources already present in the article, which count even though they require a subscription). XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for nom @Salvidrim!: FYI, determining notability for academics (WP:NACADEMICS) can be a little tricky. They can be highly notable or famed in their field, yet not receive much coverage about their lives in the general press, so thus seemingly fail WP:42. President or chancellor of a university is an extremely prestigious and influential position and typically only comes after a long career, so thus it automatically merits notability on its own (though these people always have a lot of news articles, including when they come and go from their posts, especially at public universities). Also for the future, you have to look for sources before you do an AfD — the fact that before there were only primary sources doesn't mean anything at all, because other sources were plentiful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination seems to be founded in a lack of understanding of WP:PROF#C6 and of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 8 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. I don't see this turning around in a day, and the original deletion was kicked off by a now-blocked sock, so there's not much point in letting it run. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald E. Ingber[edit]

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

I speedied this as G11, but I've been asked to restore and bring here. I've removed the inappropriate ELs and Media sections, but what's left is promotional in tone and much is unsourced or sourced to non-RS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a member of the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academies should be enough to pass point 3 of WP:PROF. Being a fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (see Recognition, 2011 in the article) is another basis for passing point 3. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain - meets GNG as WP:Academic. Appears to be highly cited with 140k+ citations. H-index and G-index are in triple digits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC. Ingber is Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard (Harvard page). Scholarly sources apart, there are other secondary sources discussing his work. For example, "From E. coli to Ebola: A device that can filter deadly pathogens out of the body", The Washington Post, 16 September 2014; "The man who built organs on chips", Cosmos, 18 January 2015; "Organs on chips", The Scientist, 28 August 2017. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as above. - PKM (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my looking around I saw nothing that said this article shouldn't be kept. That said, it is unfortunate when a worthy subject's article is complicated by seemingly COI editors. Rgroleau created Donald E. Ingber, Lung on a chip, and Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, and contributed to Tensegrity. And basically very little else but what concerned Ingber and Boston Children's Hospital. Checking the other five links into the page finds an example where Ingber was added to the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering page by JohnSerbian1951, which seems the very definition of an SPA. I guess this is the continuing tension between cultivating the knowledgeable editor and wishing for the disinterested editor. Shenme (talk) 22:24, 8 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. Enigma^msg 21:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Obry[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and even WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's come close to passing NTENNIS with a few junior slam finals, but never quite made it. Iffy★Chat -- 08:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 9 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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Pan Alley[edit]

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

Not taking to PROD because operating "numerous" arcades is a plausible claim to notability, but I wasn't able to find sources to support WP:GNG (with or without WP:ORGDEPTH considerations) or to expand the article beyond its current state. The only source given is to a picture of a token from one of the arcades. Tagged for notability since 2010. › Mortee _talk 00:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete: This article is vastly vague. It seems to me that the subject might be of notability during its prime but if there are no sound sources to lead the article towards firm notability, then there isn't any point of leaving a stub. EROS ^message 15:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The sources in the article are just tangential mentions that prove that it exists, and a quick search found nothing of depth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, having dug through all the Newspapers.com hits (some OCR errors, a lot of small advertisements, 'help wanted' ads) I did find one non-bare mention: an article about the rise of arcade games w.r.t. a Chuck E. Cheese and a Pin Pan Alley in Lansing, Michigan. I don't think it rises to the level of notability, but I've added it to the article and I'm mentioning it here in case it does change anyone's vote. › Mortee _talk 23:05, 9 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 Bachelor Girls. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Makan[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker, fails WP:DIRECTOR Act345 16:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.[47][48] Orientls (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pass WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG per above. Has received international coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC.[49][50] cbratbyrudd (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The keep !votes are based on two interviews – [51] & [52] – which contain around four independent lines about her. She has given other interviews as well. And it seems that all of them are related to the promotion of her documentary Bachelor Girls, although I haven't searched about her properly yet. As of now, I don't see any independent, in-depth coverage about her. Hopefully the AfD will get relisted so that we can discuss her notability. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with NitinMlk. All the sources given are legitimately sound but it all targets her film, Bachelor Girl and not herself. I feel that the article has yet to mature and I suggest moving into draftspace for the time being, to wait till it is well developed instead of being deleted. Subject seems to have the potential of growing in the future. EROS ^message 15:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree that the subject might become notable in the future, but, as of now, they are nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. So, as I explained below, redirect seems like the appropriate choice here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just checked online sources about her exhaustively. She has given many interviews in regard to Bachelor Girls, but I couldn't find any independent source about her. Even among the interviews, only three sources – Hindustan Times, Economic Times, & Daily Pakistan – give some details about her. As all of the three sources have provided the same information in different ways, I am quoting Hindustan Times here:

"Makan, who has a degree in psychology and was a research student and an RJ in Delhi, spent the next few years assisting on various documentaries and directing ad films. After making her debut with an experimental short film — Linger (2012) — which travelled to film festivals, Makan decided to make Bachelor Girls, a documentary on the bias towards unmarried women in housing societies."

I have also searched Hindi newspapers, but could find only one passing mention – Deutsche Welle. So we have around four lines of relevant coverage about her, which is nowhere close to what we need for a standalone article. Having said that, there is a valid alternative to deletion for the page. It can be redirected to Bachelor Girls, where she is already mentioned. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not about how much a source has written, but that independent source has written. In that case you have got it all wrong. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the relevant information about WP:GNG in the AfD of your another article, but it seems that you didn't read it. So I am quoting it again here:

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. .... "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

As you can see clearly from the guideline, we need independent & in-depth coverage, so that we can have enough material for an NPOV-based stand-alone article.

If there isn't enough coverage about the topic, then we try to find an alternative for deletion. As there isn't any mergeworthy content in the present stub, we are left with the choice of redirecting it to the subject's documentary article. BTW, as she hasn't received any independent coverage yet, and all of her interviews are basically in the context of her documentary, you can add a Background section in the documentary's article, which can explain her reasons behind creating that documentary. And the above page will serve as a good search aid till she receives enough independent coverage.

Finally, we can draftify it. But the draft will either get deleted after few months (as 4-5 lines aren't enough for a standalone article), or it will be moved back to the mainspace. In the first scenario, we will lose a valuable redirect, and in the second scenario, we will be back to its AfD, which will be total waste of time. So, best solution here is to keep it as a redirect till the subject gets healthy amount of independent coverage. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in which place of earth this is not "significant"? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already discussed this in my previous comments, but I guess you didn't read them carefully. Anyway, the source provided by you has already been discussed by me in one of my previous comments here – [53]. In fact, I've already quoted the four relevant lines from it. Everything else in it is about the documentary & the details relevant to that. That's why I previously mentioned: as "all of her interviews are basically in the context of her documentary, you can add a Background section in the documentary's article, which can explain her reasons behind creating that documentary." - NitinMlk (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above showing the significant coverage of the subject in third party reliable references. I think it meets WP:GNG. Onkuchia (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Interviews given to promote one's documentary aren't considered "third party" sources. Also, please provide sources which have "significant coverage of the subject", as I am unable to find one. BTW, by subject I mean the subject of this AfD, not the subject's documentary. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bachelor Girls, as per WP:ATD. As of now, the subject hasn't received any independent & in-depth coverage, thereby failing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. All we have are her interviews, which discuss the subject in passing while entirely focusing on her documentary or some other topic. So the page should be redirected to her documentary, as it is a valid search term. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 13 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.

[1] "Insaaf Ki Dagar Pe" – via Amazon.

[2] "स्वतंत्रता दिवस और ये 20 फिल्मी शेर...- Amarujala Kavya".

[3] "Nagpur Mahila Club fetes soldiers' wives, members - Times of India".

[4] "'....ये देश है तुम्हारा, नेता तुम्हीं हो कल के'".

[5] "इंसाफ की डगर पर : कानून के लिहाज से साल 2017 मील का पत्थर साबित हुआ वीडियो - हिन्दी न्यूज़ वीडियो एनडीटीवी ख़बर". khabar.ndtv.com.

[6] "इंसाफ की डगर पर 2017 : न्याय को दिशा देने वाले अदालतों के ऐतिहासिक फैसले".

[7] "संपादकीयः इंसाफ की डगर". Jansatta.

[8] Author, No. "Rashtriya Filmi Geet". Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd. – via Google Books. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[9] Premchand, Manek (18 July 2018). "The Hindi Music Jukebox: Exploring Unforgettable Songs". Notion Press – via Google Books.

[10] Dwyer, Rachel (1 December 2005). "100 Bollywood Films". Roli Books Pvt. Ltd. – via Google Books.

[11] Bharatan, Raju (14 April 2014). "Naushadnama: The Life and Music of Naushad". Hay House, Inc – via Google Books.

[12] Rag, Pankaj (10 August 2018). "Dhuno Ki Yatra". Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt Ltd – via Google Books.

[13] "Watch: This sitar cover of AR Rahman's cult classic 'Humma Humma' is just magical". 25 April 2017.

[14] Gulazāra; Nihalani, Govind; Chatterjee, Saibal (10 August 2018). "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema". Popular Prakashan – via Google Books.

[15] "Humma Humma: Remo Fernandes damns the OK Jaanu song as pale, insipid". 17 December 2016.

[16] "Remo is right in criticising Humma Humma: Remake composer Tanishk Bagchi". 21 December 2016.

[17] "Humma Humma to Tamma Tamma — he's Bolly's music man of the moment. Meet Calcutta boy Tanishk Bagchi".

[18] "Watch: This sitar cover of AR Rahman's cult classic 'Humma Humma' is just magical". 25 April 2017.

[19] "A.R.REHMAN Special "humma Humma" Price in India - Buy A.R.REHMAN Special "humma Humma" online at Flipkart.com". Flipkart.com.

[20] "Global Spirit - world fusion music by Karunesh". www.karuneshmusic.com.

[21] "NAR 2007 Lifestyle Music Award Winners". www.zonemusicreporter.com.

[auto-22] Bose, Ishani (8 September 2017). "Happy Birthday Ashaji: 10 Evergreen Songs By The Melody Queen".

[23] "पुण्यतिथि विशेष: फुटबॉलर जिसके गीतों के बिना प्रेम पत्र अधूरे रहते हैं". Firstpost Hindi.

[24] "जब ओपी नैयर के गाने आकाशवाणी ने बैन कर दिए थे". Firstpost Hindi.

[25] "OP Nayyar and RD Burman: The magicians in Asha Bhosle's life". 8 September 2016.

[26] "Asha Bhosle: I have sung all sorts of weird songs".

[27] Iyengar, Shriram. "10 songs that capture the rhythm of OP Nayyar – Death anniversary special". Cinestaan.

[28] Thombare, Suparna. "10 memorable songs featuring Babita – 70th birthday special". Cinestaan.

[29] "Top 5 songs of Asha Bhosle". 8 September 2015.

[auto-30] Staff, Scroll. "'Daddy' song 'Zindagi Meri Dance Dance' brings Bappi Lahiri's discarded tune back to life".

[31] Hungama, Bollywood (7 August 2017). "30 saal baad - Mithun Chakraborty's disco song 'Zindagi Meri Dance' recreated for Arjun Rampal's Daddy - Bollywood Hungama".

[32] "Daddy song Zindagi Meri Dance Dance is a perfect throwback to everything retro. Watch video". 4 August 2017.

[33] "Watch: Arjun Rampal's 'Zindagi Meri Dance Dance' brings the 1980s back with a bang!". 4 August 2017.

[34] "Zindagi Meri Dance Dance Song - DADDY Film - Arjun Rampal". 4 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]