Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 August 10 August >

Purge server cache

Super Robot (disambiguation)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:PARTIAL - a disambiguation page is not a search index, and all the entries are partial title matches. There are a great many series with "Super Robot" in their name, but none with the exact title of "Super Robot". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PTM and Zxcvbnm‘s rationale. — Gorthian (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all entries are WP:PTMs and use of search is more likely to get the searcher where they want to be. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 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 keep. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Public School Waidhan[edit]

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

School may not meet notability guideline. No third party references linking to the school. Also article has cited no references. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination version. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional. Infobox even lists a student who created the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC) updated 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional verbiage and information has been scrubbed from the article. Question is now whether the school of grade 1 to 8 still has enough to retain or merge to the DAV schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, it looks like the school supposedly offers classes up to 10th grade (X), but there currently aren't any students yet as reported in Class IX-X or XI-XII. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always been unsure about school notability, as it seems to almost be enough for it to exist, at least from the few times I have AFD'd schools. It looks like there is as much notability here as for others we have kept, yet my gut tells me none of them (including this) should be. So whilst my heart says delete my Wikilawyer say keep.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Existence of this government secondary school is proven. There is nothing promotional about it - it is not a commerce. And AngusWOOF, unsurprisingly, the article was createed by a student - most school articles are created by their teachers, students, or alumni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that flag as COI right away (which it is)? It's no longer promotional now that we scrubbed it. Question is now whether it offers high school level education or is it still a junior high equivalent since there are only students reported up to the eighth grade. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the article's talk page for connected contributor. When the originator created the article, he had also created a vanity page for himself (since AFDed and Salted) where he said he is a student of the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sadly. The level of notability of schools is ridiculously low, but this seems to meet it. It needs to be kept at basically a stub level until the sourcing improves and I'm not sure the article creator gets that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Depressing !vote section here. It seems that the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC might as well have not happened. Is 'it exists' really all that is required for a secondary school? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a high school. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to DAV Public School, Waidhan, if kept, as the official name of the school. Just Chilling (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is a secondary school a secondary school if it doesn't have any student in 9th-12th grades? No. The only references are their own site and official lists of schools, which demonstrate existence but not notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 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 keep. There is a rough consensus that the various base requirements for an article are met, with some other arguments not necessitating deletion. There is also a significant opinion that the article needs significant reworking to remove non-reliable sources and resolve NPOV issues, which I encourage those interested to do so. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navel in popular culture[edit]

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

Mostly OR and full of poorly sourced material. Not notable in the current state. WP:STARTOVER Carl Fredrik talk 22:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Physiology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot see any one searching for this. Vorbee (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see how this is military related, should be delisted. Kges1901 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops read it as navy in popular culture. De listing. Edit: And I think I was perhaps thinking of naval. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename The navel in popular culture. I haven't read the whole article, but the parts I did gaze at looked okay to me, and there seem to be plenty of acceptable references. Barbara Eden's navel coverage, for example, is fairly well-known. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Afd is a fully valid venue to WP:STARTOVER Carl Fredrik talk 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Clarityfiend. I also note this is a particularly gendered topic, and encourage all !voters to consider their implicit biases. --Theredproject (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of acceptable sources. "Mostly OR" is a very odd opinion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
T0mpr1c3 How is it an odd opinion? Carl Fredrik talk 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the OR. Where is it? Does it justify removing the entire article? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want to WP:STARTOVER, deletion isn't necessary, as WP:STARTOVER implies that an article doesn't need to be deleted if this is an option. SemiHypercube ✎ 15:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- An article with 354 references is a very substantial one. The navel in popular culture would certainly be a better name. If it lacks NPOV, as one tag implies, that is a matter to be resolved by editing, not by deletion. WP:OR is usually about material with no citations, which might be the editor's invention. It might be complained that this is an essay, but I do not think that is a valid criticism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oekaki[edit]

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

Something to do with Japan and pictures. Begins as a WP:DICDEF, then goes on about a type of Japanese imageboard. Google indicates that this is a thing that exists (and also a sewing machine), but not that it is a notable thing, in the sense of having substantial coverage in reliable sources. The content is essentially unsourced, and the one source that looks reliable does not mention "oekaki". The German and French articles are more coherent, but even more unsourced. Probably best deleted on account of the WP:V and WP:N problems, and then recreated from scratch once somebody does find decent sources. Sandstein 22:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article seems confused about its subject, mostly because it is attempting to talk about a general thing (online drawing programs) from the perspective of a very narrow set of users (anime fans on a few BBSes and sites). If it's about the general thing, it's completely inadequate, and if it's about the narrow set of users, then it could be a sentence or two in a different article. Talk history does not instill confidence in the content. WP:TNT time. Bakazaka (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that it is merely a glorified dicdef. The Wiktionary entry is enough.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz Romilly[edit]

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

I believe she fails WP:NACTOR. Unfortunately I found only one brief interview from a theatre website. She does seem to be working frequently (and in notable productions) so I think it seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not finding significant coverage to demonstrate notability; doesn't look like she meets WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient sourcing; of the seven cites used to "source" this article, six are clearly not even within the realm of meeting WP:RS standards. The seventh is an RS, but it contains no in-depth or meaningful discussion of the subject, beyond noting that she played a certain role in a production. Clearly this is insufficient available sourcing to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, and my own attempts to turn up anything further have not uncovered anything to shift the analysis. All factors considered, a fairly easy call. Snow let's rap 22:50, 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. MBisanz talk 10:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modultrade[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable blockchain related company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible covert advertising. MER-C 19:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote this article by following examples of existing companies on Wikipedia to avoid advertising it. Please indicate the part that needs to be reformulated. Due to the one revert per 24h rule, I can only add one additonal source per day to make it notable and I am adding them so please don't delete the article until I do so.MJ.Bouche (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the deletion nomination is that I believe it can't be fixed. You need to find substantial, intellectually independent coverage by reliable media outlets. Press releases and cryptocurrency enthusiast websites are not reliable sources. MER-C 10:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources are all advertising-type non-independent coverage. No reliable sources. If the article author wishes to add reliable sources, then he can certainly do that on the talk page, or all at once on the article page, or even as a series of edits over an hour of so. There's no excuse for an essentially unsourced article like this about a commercial product. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:00, 14 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) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was redirect to Geoff Johns. Rough consensus that notability is not met, and notability cannot be inherited. As there seems a rough agreement amongst the commenting eds that redirecting to founder seems logical, and no inherent disagreement from nom a redirect seems appropriate. As the article doesn't seem miles from satisfying notability, this may also aid any eventual recreation (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Ghost Productions[edit]

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

Delete Notability is not inherited and while some of the films and tv series are notable, as is the founder, the company itself does not appear to be. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:38, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saniya Pannu[edit]

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

There really aren't any sources on her that I would even call "legitimate," and plus this was most likely written by a COI... TJH2018talk 16:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Berkeley-Agyepong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Never played in a fully professional league (Aldershot play in the National League, which is not fully pro -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:39, 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. MBisanz talk 10:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of hardware random number generators[edit]

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

Another indiscriminate linkfarm of software that is unlikely to be notable individually. It doesn't appear that any content here individually has an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 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) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I made this article many years ago, I was under the impression that hardware random number generators were much more useful than they actually are. Sbierwagen (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article WP:G7 tagged. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined this. G7 only applies if the article has no significant contributions from other people, and although Sbierwagen started it plenty of other people have contributed. Hut 8.5 16:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the past, I have defended articles from the accusation of violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY because, even though they listed commercial products, they provided more and different information than a manufacturer's catalog. (Example.) This, however, falls on the wrong side of that line. XOR'easter (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It isn't clear to me that any editors have so far tried to provide enough sourcing for the article to establish WP:GNG. If they do so, they may succeed and the article should then unquestionably be kept. (I hope so, because this is a useful article.) Certainly, it is hard to provide citations for a deleted article! If it such an attempt has definitely been tried, and failed, however, then deletion is probably fair. Zazpot (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that’s kinda what a 7 day deletion discussion is for. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of hardware random number generators is indisputably notable. The question here is whether this specific table is in accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In my judgment, it isn't. I would be fine with a page that was a list of historically significant hardware RNGs, if there were so many that such a list outgrew the hardware RNG article itself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a comparison site for shoppers, and that's all this article will ever be. The topic of comparison is not in and of itself notable, and the article does not do anything beyond aggregate information. The topic is already covered in hardware random number generator. I would suggest grabbing the links used as sources and pasting it into the talk page of hardware random number generator to be used to make a limited comparison of certain elements of the more notable generators within that article, if desired. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. --LeflymanTalk 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hmm, I came here with the gut feeling it's WP:USEFUL (one to avoid), and it is linked from outside WP. The NOT directory argument seems convincing. As a spinout or table too big for the article it's good, but maybe the issue is that the items aren't notable. (ps the nom incorrectly states software, this is hardware) Widefox; talk 22:00, 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. Deleted G12 (and extended-confirmed protected against creation) by Swarm. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Roland Mew[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable from searches. Autobiographical article created by subject. Contains claims that might potentially indicate notability, but I really can't find any good coverage. Delete and salt. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above, he fails general notability, but also the more specific academic notability test. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:PROF, lacking awards, impact, or positions that would qualify. Article creator's talk page shows history of attempting to recreate mainspace page despite multiple interventions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:04, 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 keep. There seems sufficient consensus per the additional sources that GNG and BASIC have both been satisfied. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Dell[edit]

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

This is not a notable person. Two newspaper articles that mention she dated, then married, a minor sports figure does not constitute notability. If more information were to be added beyond "she dated/married" that would be a different thing, but this has been a problem for over a year and not addressed.

All of this information can be contained in a sentence in her husband's original article. TheDoctorX (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • reformatted nomination so that it will display properly. Technical work only. I am neutral (so far). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Will Middlebrooks. Change to keep based on Hirolovesswords' sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has received significant coverage including [3][4][5][6][7][8] - Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the references identified by Hirolovesswords are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: now seems well-enough sourced for GNG. PamD 08:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established to pass WP:GNG AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete: One to two sentences are not "Notable." I would prefer, however, addition to the article which includes details such as her actual biography, work history, et cetera which would not only make it "Notable" it would improve the article as a whole.TheDoctorX (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the nominator to !vote delete since the nomination itself is a statement to delete. In any case, notability is not based on the current state of the article but on the independent reliable sources that are available, whether or not incorporated in the article. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not since I was happy with Merge or improving the article from about three sentences on a person whose only notability is she dated a ball player as I clearly indicated.TheDoctorX (talk) 22:58, 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 as G5, creation of a blocked user in violation of their block. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masih Tajzai[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject except this which is an inverview and I see no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 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 delete. G11 Yunshui 雲水 17:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Libeer[edit]

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

WP:BLP failing article, nothing except the awards is sourced. Also contains puffery. » Shadowowl | talk 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 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 keep. Seems a firm consensus that her notable work (in its various forms) and the coverage of it satisfies WP:AUTHOR, with the addition of more suitable sourcing. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Burditt[edit]

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

Of the references, one mentions the subject only in passing, the other appears to be promo piece about their speaking event, the last being an interview, not constituting coverage about the subject, but from them. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - First ref confirmed key role in long-running popular series and the last one was a long interview in People which also shows notability, but only sourcing uncontroversial personal info. Added a couple more sources, but many more available. Should have been a Refimprove. StrayBolt (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiably played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work covered in multiple independent newspaper/periodical reviews, so seems to pass WP:AUTHOR#3. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her book was a best seller and made into a movie so she passes WP:Author JC7V-constructive zone 04:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" from WP:AUTHOR. PamD 08:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep, several soruces were added during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 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 speedy delete. per author(s) request. Sam Walton (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Ali Raza Shah[edit]

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

I created this BLP a week ago. Subject was declared successful in recent Pakistani general election, however in vote recount today xe lost the election as per this news story. Thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. I don't see her meeting GNG either. Saqib (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as we both are its contributors so we can ask admintrator to close and delete it. Störm (talk) 09:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Brands[edit]

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

Cannot see how this meets WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 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. MBisanz talk 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Dev Yadav[edit]

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

Contested PROD, author has removed from page. Article may also meet A7 as a non-notable figure and appears to be promotional or autobiographical in nature.

No claim of notability made, other than being a "social activist". RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete autobiographical article about "one of the highest-ranked member of the Sarlahi Development Community" a non-notable organization. Agree that it might have met WP:A7, if there hadn't been that claim. There's still some spam about that organization at Malangawa#Social_Media_Community if anyone's interested. Vexations (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major WP:COI issue and behavioral issues aside, the subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG, and there does not seem to be any other pathway to notability. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:10, 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. MBisanz talk 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayfield Homes[edit]

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

Declined speedy, since it has sources. An unremarkable business. TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. More sources and company's current operations added to the page.
...the above unsigned opinion is that of the page creator.TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that this company is notable. Coverage consists of:
Showhome, Business Desk and Development Finance: I think these are trade magazines. "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability" per WP:ORG.
The Times (first link), the Irish Times and Bloomberg: WP:RS, but none of these mention Hayfield Homes.
The Times (second link), Stratford Herald (first link), Stratford Observer and Banbury Guardian: I think these are fine, but don't make up significant coverage.
Stratford Herald (second link): does not add anything to the first SH link.
Worcester News: reads promotional. Tacyarg (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at the citations, and agree with Tacyarg's analysis. WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above analysis, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:32, 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. There seems consensus that notability is clearly established and that no specific cleanup standards that would necessitate deletion, rather than cleanup, were occurring. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny in horror films[edit]

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

The article in its current state needs an almost total rewrite into a more encyclopedic format. The article should be summarized in the section of the more general page for horror movies while a rewrite is done to conform to wiki standards Zubin12 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not seeing any valid reason for deletion in the nomination. Sure, the article needs work, but that is not in itself a reason to delete it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Lugnuts states an article needing work (and there are millions of those here at the 'pedia) is not a reason for deletion. WP:BEFORE and WP:SOFIXIT are guidelines to consider brfore nominations like this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is clearly a notable subject within film criticism. The article could use work, but what articles don't. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - as has been pointed out, this is a notable subject. Misogyny in horror films is really exaggerated and frequently discussed by film critics, journalists and academics specializing in gender/media studies. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it could use some work, but seriously, it's not anywhere close to destructively bad. AfD is not for article review. By every measure we have, it's a notable topic. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 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 Page deleted via CSD A7 and salted by Amakuru (talk · contribs)added deleting admin info and info about salting --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) outside of this discussion. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 16:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanwar Singh Vaish[edit]

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

No notability at all, BLP violations, NO sourcing, badly written, and a COI biography. IN fact it is hard to find anything that is not a violation of MOS or policy about this article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Pure vanity article that should be vaporized and salted. The editor in question appears to be fairly young by their edits and is unlikely to not recreate. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did that once, was removed by creator and just not willing to fight over something this utterly vain. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated it as well,and creator removed it, and agree with salting.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, tagged it for CSD and the author/subject removed the tag. StrikerforceTalk 15:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:21, 9 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) 14:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (burninate!) as non-notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Blatant autobiography of a non-notable person. The author/subject has removed deletion tags on multiple occasions. Suggest delete and SALT. StrikerforceTalk 15:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Unsourced and non-notable WP:AUTOBIO. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 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. MBisanz talk 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kuya[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are brief mentions. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycraig888 (talk • contribs)

Sock !vote struck
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:28, 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. MBisanz talk 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Great White Stanhope[edit]

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

The current sourcing does not contribute to GNG; the comic’s website, MySpace page, and Amazon are not RS. In a before search, all I found that was reliable and secondary was an AllMusic review. However, several independent reviews or pieces devoted to this album are required. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As alluded to by the relister, Nom is CUblocked for deceiving us and wasting our time over several years. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there may have been grounds for a procedural close, a brisk check of the article suggests at least a prima facie case for article deletion on notability grounds
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, only managed to find a site briefly describing the album [9], therefore fails WP:NALBUMS. A redirect to Doug Stanhope is also possible. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 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. MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Blechner[edit]

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

This appears to be a collection of article BY the person in question not ABOUT the person in question. Also appears to be a significant COI. I see only two passing mentions on Google news about this person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete GS h-index of 20 rather marginal in a high cited field like pop-pschology. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails to meet the GNG. Sources are primarily by him, not about him.Sandals1 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - his research is both interesting and current (I saw a short documentary just last night that commented on the fact that many people can't hear differences in minor versus major chords). However, this article is about the subject of his research, and there's little about him. That would earn a redirect at best. There are some poetential sources out there. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Xxan already said, citations too low in a high-citation area to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and not enough independent press coverage of him to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Édouard Tétreau[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:NAUTHOR.[10] His article has existed for almost 10 years on the French Wikipedia and is well-sourced. He's a respected financial columnist (with political influence) for France's major newspapers, and has written numerous books that get in-depth coverage and awards. And he's a close friend of Emmanuel Macron so continues to be in the news.[11] —МандичкаYO 😜 19:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's a public intellectual. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed per Wikimandia. Emily Khine (talk) 20:03, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1983 British Isles heat wave[edit]

1983 British Isles heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG talk 11:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 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 keep. With the new sources found, the general consensus clearly seems to be that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Bartender School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The sources quoted appear to be based on press releases or interviews - certainly not independent and reliable sources. This article was moved directly from Draft (sandbox) to mainspace without review which has not helped. A review would have flagged up the lack of quality of the sources. Now it is here in mainspace, it fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vote. Article has some secondary sources with significant coverage such as The Independent that back it up now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft as per AngusWOOF, I'm not seeing much in terms of notability however I feel moving back and allowing the creator to further work on this is far more productive than just deleting it. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kudpung and per sources in the article which apparently I somehow missed when !voting, The Independent, Le Figaro and Het Parool are certainly reliable sources, Meets GNG imho. –Davey2010Talk 14:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In don't know how The Independent, Le Figaro and Het Parool as long-time major established national newspapers in Europe could ever be considered unreliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) soures[reply]
  • Comment: AngusWOOF, AfC doesn't approve anything. Anything they 'pass' and/or move to mainspace is further examined by the official process at NPR by accredited rights holders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have pushed it back to Draft if it wasn't ready before nominating here. I just don't like when someone bypasses that process by pushing the article into mainspace without any regards to improving it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to Keep/Delete/Draftify disagreement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of the coverage in major news publications in at least three countries. Even though The Independent article is largely an interview, overall the coverage shows the school has an international profile. Sionk (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 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. MBisanz talk 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Global[edit]

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

This article lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources to meet notability. There are six references in the article as of this nomination. The first four are press releases. The fifth is a youtube video by a representative of the company that is produced for a retailer of their products. None of these are independent coverage. The Sixth reference is simply a listing on the Inc 5000. That's not significant coverage. I can only find more press releases in my searches. Whpq (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete PR releases, a youtube video, and a listing on the Inc 5000--none of this shows notability and that's what the sources consist of.Sandals1 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that references do not meet the criteria for establishing the company's notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like CORPSPAM Chetsford (talk) 00:25, 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. MBisanz talk 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Western United States freeze[edit]

2007 Western United States freeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. Lots of unsourced prose. Minor effects. No WP:LASTING significance. Article was mostly created while the event was happening. No sources placing this cold spell in a long-term perspective. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG talk 09:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92Talk 18:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. While it's adequately sourced there is nothing objectively notable about this. Chetsford (talk) 20:53, 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) 15:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hyman (attorney)[edit]

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

Minor roles in a few TV shows and a career as a lawyer but nothing to indicate notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster talk 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANYBIO has nothing to do with depth or persistence or NEVENT. The issue is whether the Young Artist Award is a "well known" award and whether being nominated for that award is a "significant honour". James500 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ANYBIO#1 clearly requires either winning or receiving multiple nominations. Subject has a single nomination and zero wins. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are absolutely right. I'm afraid I forgot that part of ANYBIO. I have struck the comment I made and apologise unreservedly for this mistake. James500 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the sources are out there. The new version of the article is richer in references. Brio (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThere may be more references, but none of them are helpful in demonstrating notability. The press releases from PRWeb don't qualify as reliable sources; the medium.com reference is self-published and essentially contentless; the resume is obviously not independent of the subject; the Florida Bar and lawyerlegion references are basically just directory entries; the KRDO and KOAA references are just name checks; and the IMDB and awards site link just demonstrate that she is nowhere near meeting WP:NACTOR. The one reference that would qualify as a reliable source, the Miami Herald piece, is primarily about her father and doesn't have the depth of coverage needed to meet WP:BASIC. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since she is the new President of the Federal Bar Association of a large city and with her dual experience (Actress and Lawyer), i think she has her place in WP Marcelo1980A (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC) — Marcelo1980A (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep Of course we should keep this article. The subject has good and reliable resources FrankyNY90 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC) — FrankyNY90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts One of the wikiprojects is alerting its members to this AFD. I note that there had been no notification of this on this page. WCMemail 11:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete acting roles do not add to notability. Law roles do not add there either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. article about a relatively minor figure, with extensive editing from apparent sockpuppetts. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "called to bar"? pretty sure that came from a sock Tekkamakii (talk) 15:48, 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. MBisanz talk 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland[edit]

Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance, this looks like a well-rounded article. Reading it fully, it consists mostly of a WP:SYNTHESIS compilation of daily weather reports. Documented effects are moderate and on par with an ordinary winter (a few accidental deaths, icy roads, schools closed one day). No WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG talk 09:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Thanks for participating. — JFG talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - Whatever about the other articles listed, I don't think it is accurate to state that the subject of the article under discussion here (UK/IE Winter 2010) was an "ordinary winter". As per a number of reliable sources (not synth) in the UK and Ireland, it was considered an unusual phenomenon then. Meeting WP:GNG. And has been the subject of analysis and retrospective since. Meeting WP:LASTING. I absolutely agree that the article needs improvement. In particular to remove the "daily weather report" style structure and the uncited "weather stats" that are peppered throughout. Both of which, per nominators note, fail "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of stats" and "Wikipedia is not the news and weather" norms. But I cannot support a deletion. As the subject itself meets WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Guliolopez (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to retrospective sources. I will just note that the Met Office publishes "interesting" notes for every year since 2000,[12] so that I'm not sure why we should single out the 2010–11 winter. Actually the 2009–10 winter was much more severe, extending a long cold grip all across Europe, and accordingly enjoys three well-documented articles. — JFG talk 14:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. The idea that unusual events that cause media attention are not unusual because they are commonplace elsewhere elsewhere in the world is flawed WP:SYNTH. Agathoclea (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody argued that this particular winter was "commonplace elsewhere". It was certainly a bit colder than usual over the British Isles, but singling out every cold winter does a disservice to truly exceptional events such as the 1990–1991 or 2009–2010 brutal and persistent cold spells. — JFG talk 14:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - The article is already well-written and covered by a substantial amount of sources. Some areas might benefit from a little revision but the topic is already notable enough for its own article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while it could be improved, this was certainly a significant event - especially in Scotland where the late November/December 2010 conditions and the resulting travel chaos they caused lead to the resignation of Stewart Stevenson as transport minister. Dunarc (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable weather event with several records broken and well documented impacts. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced and definitely an extreme event for this area of the world. Many people remember the winter of 2010-11 for its extreme cold and snow from late November to early Jan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomIntrigue (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocker Vybz[edit]

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

Fails WP: NMUSICIAN in that I can find no published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and the article makes no claim of notability either. The AfC was declined for lack of notability but the article was published anyway. Two conflict of interest, single purpose editors seem to be involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nominator, AfC declined, and the editors involved in creating the account are single-purpose accounts (at least one likely the musician himself, judging by the name). Greenman (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly searchable name, but I too could find nothing WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything that suggests the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO are met. Agree that this looks like self-promotion by a single purpose account with a WP:COI. — sparklism hey! 07:13, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David-Matthew Barnes[edit]

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

Despite significant expansion of the article over the last decade, this subject has nevertheless failed to meet the notability criteria set forth in WP:AUTHOR, and the page remains a self-promotion venue. The subject may be prolific, but doesn't appear to be notable. Satisfaction of WP:GNG is borderline as sources are regional, routine, and cover the author grouped with other authors, not as an individual profile that would constitute "significant coverage" per the guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In=depth coverage of a topic by a reliable source need not be primarily about the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The First AFD resulted in a Deletion decision in January 2007. The page was recreated in 2008 and has been under the radar ever since. The current article is full of subsequent awards. It is not clear to me if any of these are notable awards, but I am not sure that the aggregate of all of this questionably notable content is not worth keeping.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly prolific, but the fact so few people have ever chosen to write about such a prolific author and playwright seems to clearly establish non-notability. Mattyjohn (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. still no major awards or reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 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. MBisanz talk 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel Zales[edit]

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

Unremarkable social media personality , Fails WP:NMODEL. Written by WP:COI editor , Probably a promotion exercise. Razer(talk) 20:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This tagging of the article is over-zealous, and no substantial case has been put forward as to why it is not notable, Razer says Unremarkable social media personality, but this is clearly not the case and they clearly haven't even read the sources referenced in the article, let alone the many others that are available with a cursory search. Despite the assertion above, Chantel Zales meets multiple elements of WP:NMODEL as demonstrated:
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

[13], [14]. She has appeared on multiple notable magazines and payed roles in notable films.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

[15], [www.mandatory.com/fun/755205-hottest-girls-instagram-chantel-zales/amp].

many other sources are available with a cursory search. ~~
  • Delete The sourcing does not show a "cult" following and in no other way is the subject shown to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 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. MBisanz talk 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubique.com[edit]

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

Re-creation of an article about an Indian financial startup previously deleted at AfD. A few new sources, but none of them suggest that WP:CORPDEPTH is currently met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. References are a plenty, but they are either from unreliable sources, brief mentions, or general announcements (or a combination). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Agree with nom and above. This topic was deleted this time last year. Routine press coverage based on company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:47, 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. Despite the apparently large number of "keep" comments, they turn out to be worth very little, for two reasons. (1) Checking the history makes it clear that all of them are from either one sockpuppeteer or a couple of people acting together as meatpuppets, so that effectively there is only one "keep" comment. (2) Among those comments we see the following. Such vague statements as "Festivals are all valid". (What does that mean? That they really are festivals? That they are significant ferstivals? That the claim that Kinder played at them is justified? Or what?) A link to show "Confirmed national radio play" which turns out to mean that one track was once played, on a station of I know not how much or how little significance. A note telling us that from a Google search "many sources were found", but no indication that any of those "sources" was of a kind that shows notability. And so on ... When we give all that the amount of weight that it merits, we are left with a consensus to delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinder (band)[edit]

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

I don't believe WP:NBAND is met; the music festivals listed are of unclear notability themselves. Their first single was released in July 2018, likely WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Festivals are all valid. They were on the GTM tour in 2017. They played Splendour in the Grass 2017, Party in the Paddock in 2018 and will play Spilt Milk Festival in the later half of 2018. They have also played Alison Wonderland's Festival and This That Festival. REF: http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/party-paddock-announces-2018-set-times/

https://spilt-milk.com.au https://www.gtm.net.au/lineup/2017-2/ https://www.splendourinthegrass.com http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/festival-unveils-2017-lineup-feat-presets-alison-wonderland/ http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/alison-wonderland-announces-2017-wonderland-scarehouse-project-tour/ http://themusic.com.au/news/all/2018/02/05/nghtmre-and-slander-announce-australian-tour/

02:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

https://jplay.com.au/artist-profile/18060/ jonnycraig888 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

struck sock. Note to admin, IPs commenting here are also the same editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know you can't vote twice, yeah? Also, Unearthed is not national radio play: It's a website for unsigned artists.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the second link you will see they have been played a number of times on the actual triple j radio. They are also on regular rotation on a swedish radio which came up on a google hit. https://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/1112448?programid=4067 04:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep : Subject passes WP:NBAND. Notable festivals and radio play. -Nana222222 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you've already made your view known above when you were logged out. ... discospinster talk 16:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sorry about that.
  • Keep Passes Notability. After an initial Google search I couldn't find much on the subject matter; however after rewording the name 'Kinder Dj's' many sources were found. 4:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The amount of music festivals they have played is quite significant. They have also been played on triple j regularly which is credited on their website. 21:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the official site of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://syn.org.au/get-cereal-mondays-season-3/ http://syn.org.au/review-groovin-moo-2017/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 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. MBisanz talk 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goatman: Flesh or Folklore?[edit]

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

Self-published pseudoscience work (cryptozoology) with no evident notability. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie:, @Tronvillain:, both of whom frequently work in these corners. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article includes 7 references to reviews of the book, including one from Rue Morgue. Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Per Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that of those "7 references to reviews", all are reviews on blogs outside of Rue Morgue and Fortean Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm looking at the November 2015 issue of the Fortean Times and the goatman isn't mentioned. Ah, I see, it was the October 2015 issue. --tronvillain (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to satisfy WP:NBOOK. It has coverage in the Fortean Times and Rue Morgue. They are magazines. One has a circulation in excess of 13,000. We might infer from that circulation that this book is well known. I cannot think of any reason why either of those magazines would not be reliable for the 'entertainment value' of this book. No substantive objection to either source has been offered. James500 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll echo the above. It's a stub, could use expansion. Although how much can one say about it? But short doesn't mean it fails to meet notability. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read and edited many Wikipedia pages for books. The burden of proof to prove notability lies with the editor who decides to write the Wikipedia page. You always start with notable citations (reviews of the book from notable people/sources) This is a new book (2014) and all reviews would be easily found in a quick search. Because they were not used, I'm going to assume that they do not exist. There is a reception area, so obviously the editor tried to find notable citations, and failed. Of the seven mentions in the reception, only three are notable. And of that few words are used to review, they sound like blurbs on the back of the book, not real reviews. The Fortean Times review links to a print magazine, no page number, no author, only "November 2015 issue". The Rue Morgue link is a 404 link. The Lloren Coleman link is to a list of 20 books on cryptozoology and he does not review any of them, just says these are the best cryptozoology books of 2014. As far as we know they might be the only cryptozoology books in 2014, really there is no review of this specific book. So what I'm saying here is that if there was more content about this book to expand it past a stub, it would be on this page already. Also when writing a Wikipedia page for a book, you START with the notable reviews, NOT add them as if an afterthought. This editor did not do due diligence. Sgerbic (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, under WP:BEFORE the burden of proof lies squarely on the nominator and those arguing for deletion. WP:NRVE states that sources are not required to be online. You may not assume the coverage in what you know to be print magazines (that would be the two I mentioned) does not exist merely because it is not available online. Many things are not. If you have doubts, you must look at a print copy. James500 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, the article provides no evidence of the review being in the Rue Morgue print magazine. I've established the issue and page number of the -Fortean Times. --tronvillain (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the burden of proof relies on the nominator then that means that we might as well open up the doors to articles on everyone's cat. And we can just busy ourselves nominating and discussing their deletion. The original editor has to do their due diligence to prove that the article is notable. They are the person making the claim. I'm well aware that we use print citations, I have used many over the years. But a book this recent would also have citations online by now. I am trying not to assume, but common-sense tells me that if the best this book has are two mentions in a print article that do not exist online, then this book is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a Createspace self-published book pushing WP:FRINGE claims (example: "Of course, just about everyone says it’s all just an urban legend. Except for those who’ve came face-to-muzzle with the Goatman himself, or the families of those who’ve died while trying to encounter the monster"). With zero WP:FRIND sources available to build an objective article with, it can only cite gushing reviews from other fringe-mongers. If, someday, it should gain notability outside the fringe bubble which are more than passing mentions, we can revisit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A self-published book that doesn't appear to meet WP:NFRINGE. It seems to have been mentioned in various fringe sources and on the Rue Morgue website, but it's nothing like the extensive coverage by sources independent of the fringe theory of cryptozoology we'd want for its own article. --tronvillain (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete self-published work which apparently got no notice outside the crypto/Fortean bubble. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete self-published work, in-bubble. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the last three above. As is self-evident, the sources fail the crucial requirement for a reliable source: a solid reputation for fact-checking. It's not totally inconceivable that a book vanity-published by Amazon might become fully notable by our standards (with substantial reviews in the New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement and the like), but that is most definitely not the case here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – Seemingly no notablility; still a book, could pass guidelines. However, delete per previous 4 comments and nom. Redditaddict69 09:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Duffy (footballer, born 1918)[edit]

Chris Duffy (footballer, born 1918) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N.- Kishfan (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:N. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played over 100 games in a fully professional league. What a bizarre nomination. Kosack (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even with my limited knowledge of football, this person is easily notable (assuming the article isn't a hoax, of course). Playing 150+ games for one club, and scoring in a FA Cup final too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 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 Luis Ruiz Suárez. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Ricci Social Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Is in fact a part of Caritas Macau with insufficient notability for a separate article. The Banner talk 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This recounts the history of Casa Ricci Social Services since the 1950s and its evolution that has been independent of Caritas Macau, which began only in 1971. The references show its own notability: "Today, CRSS currently runs 50 programs distributed in 13 provinces in China with 64 Leprosy centers for a total of 4,000 leprosy affected patients, five (5) HIV homes with a total of 40 children, 300 HIV+ mothers/adult, 200 adults at risk of affecting AIDS, and 1500 students from poor families". It antedated Caritas Macau whose services focus on metropolitan Macau, while CRSS serves all of China and beyond, with help from the Ricci Social Service Foundation. Jzsj (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the case here is sourcing. When you cut out the related sources and obits, more then half of the sources is gone. Then you are left with passing mentions and an address book. WP:RS please. The Banner talk 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does Wikipedia say that obits, with considerable information on the subject in independent newspapers, cannot be used to verify what is said on the organization's website?
A careful check of the reference numbers reveals the following sources that are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website" (WP:GNG).:
2 government record of charter giving nature of Ricci foundation
3 government stamp establishing the Jesuit presence in Macau social services in 1569
8 travel guide produced by a source independent of Fr. Lu, giving his history in brief
9 diocesan newspaper reporting on an anniversary of Fr. Lu's work
10 magazine of the Chinese Jesuits, reporting on the international connections of the leprosy work of Casa Ricci Social Service
11 reproduction of Fr. Lu's obit in the Sunday Examiner
12 obit of Fr. Lu in the Macau Daily Times
13 Catholic News Philippines report reflecting on Fr. Lu's work with refugees
14 long report at Fr. Lu's death, in the Asian Catholic News Service, including input from readers
1 and 4 give credible accounts of the work of Casa Ricci on its website, largely substantiated above
5,6,7 give an extensive historical account of Fr. Lu's work on the Caritas website Jzsj (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is enough coverage including information from obituaries which is permitted for a pass of WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are two keep votes and no supporting deletion beyond the OP's, I am concerned that too many of the sources cited by the principle Keep advocate are related to the subject. Therefore I am re-opening the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – for now at least – to Caritas Macau, which according to this source is what this now is ("... the Ricci Centre for Social Services, now the Macau branch of Caritas ..."); we surely do not need two articles on the same institution, particularly if one of them is as poorly sourced as this one. Whether Caritas Macau is notable by our standards remains to be seen; Luis Ruiz Suárez most certainly is – the obituaries, are, not surprisingly, almost entirely about him rather than any organisation he founded, and it may be that the article about him would provide better overall coverage of this topic. I don't read Chinese, but of the two obituaries that I can read, the Macau Daily Times has only the passing mention of this institution already quoted above, while the CathNews Philippines source has only a photo credit; that's far short of the level of in-depth coverage required by WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez.My views entirely align with JLN, except that I am not sure about the notability of Caritas Macau, either whereas LRS is definitely notable.∯WBGconverse 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment plus, Caritas Macau is a totally separate thing. This article is Suárez's work so it should be merged or redirected there. Redditaddict69 11:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian propaganda in Macedonia[edit]

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

POV coatrack sourced to fringe blogs. 23 editor (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are several reliable sources that discuss the matter of Serbian propaganda in Macedonia, which was part of a struggle of several nations for domination over the region of Macedonia. However, well-sourced content could be added to relevant articles, the topic is not notable enough to have its own article. Furthermore, the article could gradually become a WP:COATRACK. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would not be against having an article specifically on how identity in Macedonia transitioned under Yugoslav rule (existing articles do not covert this specifically and some of them are quite long), but given the sourcing issues, the POV name ("Serbian propaganda") and other issues this is clearly not that article.--Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:06, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find.Exchange[edit]

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

Mere mentions in two sources, a third source is the founder of the company. Previously deleted as A7. Vexations (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joan (film)[edit]

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

Can't find multiple independent sources to show me how this passes WP:MOVIE. It doesn't meet any of the criteria. JC7V-constructive zone 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD for film maker:

AFD of his films:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources discussing this film. Yes, it has an uniformative user-edited IMdB page, but that is neither independent not reliable. This film is not notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 9 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) 14:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shel Horowitz[edit]

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

I'm not seeing WP:GNG here. The only citations in reliable sources are passing mentions and don't meet WP:SIGCOV. There are a number of non-independent/self-published sources, and that's where the meat of this article comes from. Using only RS, there doesn't appear to be an article to be written. It appears to be largely a promotional vehicle rather than an encyclopedia article. Marquardtika (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withholding judgment for now. keyed his name into a proquest news archive search, the fact that the first few hits, and many on the first page of the search were to press releases is not a good sign. The is, however, some actual; coverage of his life, career, and books he has written (alone or together with his wife) in WP:RS, as a paragraph or two in a longer article. I haven't found a profile article yet or looked to see whether any of his books have gotten attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this. FYI, GreenEthicalShel (talk · contribs) has disclosed that he is the article subject, and I notified him of this discussion so he may weigh in here as well. Marquardtika (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV and the failure of my searches to find it, for him or his books (I used a Proquest news archive search). His career has been as a marketing consultant, apparently focusing on promoting writers. Here's a sentence, lifted from the page "Horowitz has been marketing online since 1994, and using social media since 1995." I give him credit for self-parody, but the page - created by an SPA - is WP:PROMO for a non-notable marketing guru, and, as Marquartike states above, has been edited more recently by GreenEthicalShel (talk · contribs), who has admitted tha thhe is the article subject. Thanks to User:Marquardtika for finding this and bringing it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shel Horowitz responds: 1) The most recent significant profile is in Forbes: [1]. There have been several other ones including this one, which gives some interesting insights into my influences and heroes: [2] Some of the profiles go back to the pre-Internet days and are not archived online, including one in Bottom Line/Business and another in the Christian Science Monitor.

2) My books have been published by John Wiley & Sons (Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green), Simon & Schuster (Marketing Without Megabucks), Chelsea Green (Grassroots Marketing), Morgan James (Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World), and Stackpole (Nuclear Lessons), as well as my own imprint. You can see all but the Stackpole book on Page 1 of the Amazon page for my name: [3] Foreign publishers in six countries (Japan, Korea, India, Mexico, Italy, and Turkey) have republished my books (the Mexican and Indian editions are on page 2 of the results; the site would not load to page 3). The Korean publisher was The Economic Daily, Korea's equivalent to the Wall Street Journal. Four of my US books have won at least one award, and another was a finalist. My booik with Wiley was a category bestseller for more than 30 months.

3) My books have been reviewed in Midwest Book Review, Library Journal, Christian Science Monitor, Publishers Weekly, and many other respected sources.

4) I confess that I am mystified by E.M. Gregory's reference to "books he has written (alone or together with his wife)." My wife, novelist D. Dina Friedman, has published two works of fiction and has a poetry collection forthcoming. She and I have collaborated on a few published articles but never on a book. I have co-authored two books with Jay Conrad Levinson, who has authored or co-authored about 100 books in the Guerrilla Marketing series. I also co-authored my first book with literary agent Richard Curtis and his prior co-author elizabeth Hogan. And a client, Ana Weber, very generously gave me a co-author credit on some books I ghostwrote for her.

5) I am not familiar with Prosearch but I did a search on Google, subtracting results from all the active sites I own. This brought back 14,800 results. The actual query was -site:greenandprofitable.com -site:frugalfun.com -site:frugalmarketing.com -site:goingbeyondsustainability.com -site:shelhorowitz.com -site:transformpreneur.com -site:greenandprofitable.com -site:thecleanandgreenclub.com -site:guerrillamarketinggoesgreen.com -principledprofit.com "shel horowitz" and the results URL was [4] I looked through the first two pages of results and found links to my 2014 TEDx talk [5], a link to my four articles published on GreenBiz.com [6] and one on Sustainable Brands [7] (two highly respected and credentialed publications in the green business world), a link to 20 blog posts I published on Fast Company [8], to my bio page on the Family Business Center of Pioneer Valley [9], where I published at least 62 articles over several years, and links to several podcast interviews and profiles.

6) While many of the citations are brief, it's worth noting that I have been quoted as a source repeatedly in top-tier media. That they keep coming back to me as a source says something about my credibility. I've been quoted at least 57 times in Entrepreneur [10], five times in the New York Times (not counting several letters I've published there) [11], twice in the Wall Street Journal [12]. I've been featured in two short national segments on ABC TV, interviewed on hundreds of radio broadcasts and podcasts, and quoted in hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles. I've even been quoted in a Reader's Digest story about how to get kids active on environmental issues [13] (scroll 3/4 down to "Bring it up at dinnertime")

7) I am a 2011 inductee into the National Environmental Hall of Fame [14] and operate the first business ever to receive Green America's Gold-level green business certification. I believe this response demonstrates that I have sufficient credibility to be seen as an expert and to justify the article. I've published award-winning books with major houses (and my books have been reviewed many times), spoken at major conferences including a TEDx, written for respected publications and been a frequent expert source for journalists. I've been recognized by my peers for my achievements in green business. Thank you for your attention. As I noted to User:Marquardtika in my earlier response, I share your interest in maintaining Wikipedia as a high-quality authoritative source, and I believe my entry adds solid content. --68.118.253.102 Shel Horowitz (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kareanderson/2017/02/19/profit-by-tackling-massive-social-and-environmental-problems/#12b6046e6692
  2. ^ https://nonfictionauthorsassociation.com/expert-interview-shel-horowitz-author-of-green-and-profitable/
  3. ^ https://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=shel+horowitz
  4. ^ https://www.google.com/search?ei=IjdwW-q0IZHH_Qazmq_gBw&q=-site%3Agreenandprofitable.com+-site%3Afrugalfun.com+-site%3Afrugalmarketing.com+-site%3Agoingbeyondsustainability.com+-site%3Ashelhorowitz.com+-site%3Atransformpreneur.com+-site%3Agreenandprofitable.com+-site%3Athecleanandgreenclub.com+-site%3Aguerrillamarketinggoesgreen.com+-principledprofit.com+%22shel+horowitz%22&oq=-site%3Agreenandprofitable.com+-site%3Afrugalfun.com+-site%3Afrugalmarketing.com+-site%3Agoingbeyondsustainability.com+-site%3Ashelhorowitz.com+-site%3Atransformpreneur.com+-site%3Agreenandprofitable.com+-site%3Athecleanandgreenclub.com+-site%3Aguerrillamarketinggoesgreen.com+-principledprofit.com+%22shel+horowitz%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...191220.191220.0.192929.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.Ct1ctK0OjkM
  5. ^ https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/11809
  6. ^ https://www.greenbiz.com/users/shel-horowitz
  7. ^ https://www.sustainablebrands.com/user/41102
  8. ^ https://www.fastcompany.com/user/shel-horowitz
  9. ^ http://fambizpv.com/articles/shel_bio_link.html
  10. ^ https://www.entrepreneur.com/search?q=%22Shel%20Horowitz%22#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22Shel%20Horowitz%22&gsc.page=1
  11. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22shel%20horowitz%22
  12. ^ https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=9zpwW8X_Honi_AbrrryoDA&q=site%3Awsj.com+%22shel+horowitz%22&oq=site%3Awsj.com+%22shel+horowitz%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1629.1629.0.2888.2.1.0.0.0.0.68.68.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0.0...0.L-FFy3b0j3A
  13. ^ https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/kids-save-planet-in-minutes/
  14. ^ http://environmentalhalloffame.net/photo-gallery/community-photo-galleries/green-success/
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR; significant RS coverage not found. Appears to be an autobiography and overly promotional at that. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read through the last no consensus deletion discussion. basically they argued since he wrote a chapter in a book that made a best seller list, he was notable. Even being the lead author of a book that makes a best seller list is not going to gaurantee notability, but writing a chapter is downright not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete – There is a lot of information about him that could be useful for an encyclopedia, but none of it is notable. Redditaddict69 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Further note from Shel Horowitz: I spent several hours last week collecting documentation, and particularly gathering and citing media coverage, especially reviews of my fifth book Grassroots Marketing: Getting Noticed in a Noisy World (Chelsea Green, 2000) and my eighth book Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green (John Wiley & Sons, 2010; also translated and republished in Italy and Turkey). Unfortunately, apparently I neglected to hit the Publish button and the changes were unsaved. Yesterday, my computer restarted itself and those changes were lost. I really can't spend another several hours recreating all that documentation. So instead, here's one review each: http://www.csrwire.com/csrlive/commentary_detail/3581-CSRwire-Book-Review-Guerrilla-Marketing-Goes-Green (Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green--note that this was original content initiated by an employee of CSR wire and that I have never been a client of theirs). http://web.archive.org/web/20060615054938/http://bookpromotionnewsletter.com:80/reviews.htm#grassroots (Grassroots Marketing). Also, here is the Publishers Weekly review of my self-published Principled Profit (2003). It is very rare for a self-published book to be reviewed in Publishers Weekly. This book also won an Apex Award and was republished in India (as Ethics In Marketing, published by Jaico first in hardback and then in paperback) and Mexico (Mercadotecnia basada en las personas, later retitled in the second edition as Mercadotecnia basada en ganar-ganar). Again, it's quite rare for self-published books to be picked up by foreign publishers. --68.118.253.102 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Monbiot[edit]

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

The only non-trivial coverage appears to be in "Vegan Magazine", and I don't think that coverage is substantial and independent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have three separate links showing coverage of her as an arm-wrestling sports woman and as a world champion. How is this not notable? Golan's mom (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 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. – Joe (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby (singer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Claims for a hit single are unsubstantiated. Sources provided are neither reliable nor independent. Strong suggestion of creation by a COI SPA. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I understand that this article has been flagged for deletion. I am curious as to why this would be the case. Touchanddigital (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: articles like this from Todo Noticias or this from Telemetro (starting "The famous Panamanian reggae singer Gaby, best known for his iconic theme "El Meneaito"), or this in El Siglo (Panama), indicate that he is indeed notable in Panama (and beyond, e.g. Ecuador as well). Spanish-language newspaper sources from 30 years ago will be hard to find, but that he still gets this kind of attention now shows enduring notability. Fram (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:48, 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) 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastelein[edit]

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

Autobiography, dubious notability Antispasm (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All new content comes from non-logged users. Logged users tend to remove content, fake citations, exaggerated claims, etc from it.

The article was tagged for POV in 2013, but hours afterwards a non-logged user reverted it.

There seem to only be 2 other Wikipedia pages linking into the article. One is Qwest, which contains a citation inserted by a non-logged user, and itself smells of WP:UNDUE: a couple of lines provide a disproportionate 9 out of 27 notes for the whole article, and all of them link to light mentions about a self-described "one-off activist site" by this Richard Kastelein. (see this edit)

The other article is Atlantic Free Press, which was a website (now defunct?) led by RK. This article is also advertisement-like and abundantly edited by a non-logged user with the same IP as one of the main writers in RK's article (87.208.27.131).

Looking for other mentions of RK online, there seems to be a pattern of self-advertising, including being nominated to "awards" that apparently allow for self-nomination. And a print-on-demand "biography" in what appears to be some kind of "biography farm" in Amazon.

(I'm wasting a ton of time here, but this kind of thing is fascinating :P)

--Antispasm (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is nothing more than an extended resume. The vast majority of the "sources" are links to websites that the subject supposedly had involvement with, but provide no support whatsoever to the content of the article. The only meager coverage I could see were Kastelein being name-checked in a USA Today article, and links to a few books and newspapers articles that he has written. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 03:17, 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) 15:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbia Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Only routine coverage. --woodensuperman 08:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 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) 22:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:27, 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. Clear consensus that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America1000 06:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Goddard[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:BIO. The guy promotes climate change denialism on the internet and has had his ideas critiqued by various notable people, but there are absolutely no sources on him as a person. As such, not a notable individual. Mere mention of the person is not enough to confer notability. jps (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dubious WP:GOOGLETEST under Google News does have hits for Tony Heller and also Steven Goddard, but most don't look like quality RSs and the best just say he was invited to testify. Admittedly, there were quite a few and I reviewed just a sample so if there are great RSs let's hear about 'em. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As it is, the article just paraphrases the subject's own views on several subjects, and some responses to those views. Nothing about the subject himself. I did a news search, and there are plenty of blogs etc. commenting about his blogs etc., but no serious coverage. I'm not sure that it can be salvaged, but it would involve a total rewrite.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be a notable crank. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The people who want to know what this guy's opinion is can visit his blog. Those who do not, will learn nothing worthwhile from the WP article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (weak). Goddard/Heller is one of the important hooey manufacturers in the climate denial industry. My gut feeling is that he deserves an article which describes his activities. But I agree with earlier posters: I don't see reliable sources. Most of the fights are conducted on blogs. I haven't found the published study that could be named Sources and Dissemination of Climate Denier Memes. M.boli (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG —МандичкаYO 😜 22:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekete As noted above, he has notable critic but no notoriety on his own. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_9&oldid=1142616908"