Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I strongly urge Cunard to moderate their contributions to AfD decisions, as these walls of text, spread out over numerous screens, make the task of the closing admin much harder. In the present case, several editors dispute the sources found by Cunard with strong policy-based arguments and there is a clear consensus to delete this article. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OmiseGO

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency company. Џ 21:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure; it got RS coverage at the time, for that "first ICO unicorn" title ... is there a better place for this content? - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source "The first ICO unicorns are here" also notes Qtum which got deleted at AfD. Maybe make the article focus on the parent company, Omise? But it's creation protected. Џ 21:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parent company got deleted for repeated spammy recreations - David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Winn, Patrick (2018-07-19). "A tech startup called OMG wants to revolutionize cash for hundreds of millions of 'unbanked' people in Asia". Public Radio International. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  But among the dozens of other prominent blockchain projects — most of which are only quasi-operational — one is remarkable both for its developers’ location and the audacity of its ideas.
  It’s called OmiseGO, often shortened to OMG.
  ...
  The founders of OmiseGO are Jun Hasegawa, a Japanese former professional skateboarder turned tech entrepreneur, and Ezra “Don” Harinsut, a financial technology professional from Thailand.
  They are backed by a team of roughly 35 people — “which, I’m proud to say, includes a lot of badass girls,” Vansa says — hailing from Thailand, Japan, Poland, Australia, Singapore and elsewhere. The team has received a “startup of the year” award from Thailand’s government.
  But OmiseGO is perhaps best known in the crypto-tech scene because the great wunderkind of blockchain is one of the startup’s advisors. His name is Vitalik Buterin, a 24-year-old Russian-born programmer, and he is the mastermind behind Ethereum.
2. Lee, David Kuo Chen; Low, Linda (2018). Inclusive FinTech: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and ICO. Hackensack, New Jersey: World Scientific. p. 332. ISBN 978-981-3272-76-7. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The book notes:
  
  OmiseGo ICO Finished before it even started!
  
  While we're still getting our heads around ICOs that finish in 30 seconds, the OmiseGo ICO managed to finish before the token sale even started.
  Launched by an established Asia based payments provider, Omise – which boasts of being the first to back the Ethereum Foundation's Devgrants program – the ICO started with a token pre-sale on Bitcoin Suisse, a token investors pool of sorts that requires AML/KYC.
  The book further notes:
  8.7.5 OmiseGo
  
  OmiseGo is another interesting project that specialises in financial inclusion through payments (see Figures 8.21 and 8.22). With Vitalik Buterin and Thomas Greco from the Ethereum Foundation acting as advisors and team members, the project was a popular ICO with investors. One of the authors acts as a financial inclusion advisor and is an investor in the company.
3. "Oh My God! What is OmiseGo and Why Does OMG Rank High Among Cryptocurrencies?". Sputnik. 2018-03-04. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  OmiseGo, a virtual currency that currently operates using the Ethereum blockchain, developed by Russia’s Vitalik Buterin, features greater scalability and high transaction speeds. Ethereum was created with the ultimate goal of making crypto-money as legitimate as fiat currency.
  The Southeast Asian payment platform saw impressive development strides during the Q4 2017 bull market, pushing the value of the OmiseGo token, or OMG, to over $26.
  Omise, the parent company behind Omisego, has prioritized the implementation of merchant solutions and even made a leap in the direction of the Southeast Asian market. For instance, in 2017, Omise concluded a deal with McDonald’s Thailand, which now uses the platform as the only payment gateway provider for both the Thai McDonald’s website and the McDelivery Thailand app.
4. Russell, Jon (2017-07-05). "Fintech startup Omise raises $25M in ICO that bucks 'money grabbing' trend". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Omise, a fintech startup based in Thailand, has closed $25 million in new financing via a token sale, more commonly know as ICO, that closed today. In doing so, it become the most established tech company to date to take this financing route.
  The company, which has raised over $20 million to date from traditional VC investors, held the token sale to raise capital to develop a decentralized payment platform — Omise Go — that it hopes will disrupt the current banking system. The idea is to enable any Omise Go user to share funds through the network without the need for a bank account and without incurring fees or incurring cross-border costs. Beyond peer-to-peer payments, the company plans to sign up retail partners to extend its utility into purchases, and open the system up to other payment players, too.
  Omise Go remains under development, however, and it isn’t expected to launch fully until late next year although initial services and products will go live from Q4 2017. When it does launch, it will be powered by OMG, the Omise Go cryptocurrency which is based on ERC20 token standard and was sold in this ICO. OMG token holders will be given the opportunity to make money helping to run the network. That’s much like a software license in traditional thinking, and it mirrors a wider move by Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, who is working on ‘Casper’ proof-of-stake functionality for the cryptocurrency.
5. Russell, Jon (2016-07-20). "Omise lands $17.5M Series B to expand its Stripe-like service in Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Omise, a Bangkok-based payment enabler much like Stripe, has raised a $17.5 million Series B round to expand its reach across Southeast Asia.
  The company proves a payment gateway system that allows any retailer take credit card payments online. That’s long been a problem in Southeast Asia, which is compromised of six major countries, each of which requires a different payment solution — Omise is trying to offer a one-stop shop. Right now, its service is available in Thailand and Japan (the birthplace of CEO Jun Hasegawa), but there are plans to expand to Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, where it has carried out closed testing, in the coming months. Beyond that, Omise is looking at reaching Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mekong countries like Burma, Laos and Cambodia at a later date.
  This new round, which is one of the largest for a fintech company in Southeast Asia to date, was led by Japan-based SBI Investment, with participation from Sinar Mas Digital Ventures (SMDV) in Indonesia, Thailand’s Ascend Money (affiliated with mobile operator True), and existing backer Golden Gate Ventures. Omise has now raised over $25 million, including a $2.6 million Series A in May 2015 and undisclosed round from Golden Gate Ventures last October, right after the Singapore-based VC firm announced a new $50 million fund.
6. Leesa-Nguansuk, Suchit (2017-08-01). "OmiseGo opens up e-wallet payments". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  OmiseGo Pte, a blockchain-based subsidiary of Omise Pte Ltd, will decentralise its exchange and payment infrastructure to enable cross-platform payments with a new e-wallet software development kit.
  ...
  In late July, OmiseGo successfully raised US$25 million (833 million baht) through an initial coin offering (ICO), which is a type of kick-starter crowdfunding campaign increasingly being used by blockchain teams to fund the development and scaling of decentralised projects.
  ...
  OmiseGo is a public blockchain e-payment platform designed to enable decentralised real-time peer-to-peer value exchanges and payment services across currencies and asset types, as well as across national borders and corporate ledgers.
  The article also contains quotes from people affiliated with the company.
7. Kaveevivitchai, Nithi (2017-12-18). "Bonanza or bubble?". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  On the consumer side, practical applications are now available in Thailand from OmiseGo, which uses public ethereum-based technology that can be linked to a traditional digital wallet.
  "We see the pain point of the existing mobile wallet platform, which has not taken off, and the use of e-wallet services has been limited due to its closed platform," said Ezra Don Harinsut, chief operating officer and co-founder of Omise, a Southeast Asian payment gateway and the parent of OmiseGo.
  Holders of OmiseGo tokens are granted the right to participate in validating the transactions that go through the OmiseGo network, earning validation fees in the process. According to CoinMarketCap, its market capitalisation currently stands around copy billion.
  McDonald's Thailand has partnered with Omise to manage its payment gateway.
8. Cuen, Leigh (2017-05-31). "Initial Coin Offerings Go Mainstream: Omise and Kik Announce Cryptocurrency Sales". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  OMG tokens represent the right to help facilitate the decentralized payments system Omise is building. “They are like buying a bit of code that lets the buyers participate in running the network,” the spokesperson said. “We don’t want to be the ones who own the infrastructure. We prefer that it remains open for the benefit of everyone.” The proof-of-stake can be revoked if the user is dishonest because Omise’s goal is to create a system for processing financial transactions without a centralized control, an influential elite or a corporate monopoly, aka a bank or credit card company.
  Omise already has raised more than $20.4 million since the digital payment service was founded in 2013 and now claims to serve 8,000 merchants in Japan, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand. Its executives are blockchain veterans devoted to the ideological vision of financial neutrality espoused by bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto. Wendell Davis, Omise’s product development lead, was once part of the original team that invented Ethereum. Just as Ethereum's network had far-reaching consequences beyond its cryptocurrency, ether, OmiseGO aims to impact users beyond the company's clients. “There’s no restrictions on who can join the network. People can do things on the network that have nothing to do with Omise payments,” the spokesperson said.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OmiseGO to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references above the exact type of generic financial coverage that is prohibited by WP:NCORP and asserts WP:ORGIND, and WP:CORPDEPTH. There is no coverage outside startup news, which is expressely non notable sources. It is exactly that type of information that 100's of other crpyto currencies are reporting, and is entirely generic. There is no real secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles do not contain "exactly that type of information that 100's of other crpyto currencies are reporting, and is entirely generic". Here is non-generic information from the sources that is specifically about Omise and OmiseGo:
1. "OmiseGo, a virtual currency that currently operates using the Ethereum blockchain, developed by Russia’s Vitalik Buterin, features greater scalability and high transaction speeds."
2. "But OmiseGO is perhaps best known in the crypto-tech scene because the great wunderkind of blockchain is one of the startup’s advisors. His name is Vitalik Buterin, a 24-year-old Russian-born programmer, and he is the mastermind behind Ethereum."
3. "For instance, in 2017, Omise concluded a deal with McDonald’s Thailand, which now uses the platform as the only payment gateway provider for both the Thai McDonald’s website and the McDelivery Thailand app."
4. "Omise, a Bangkok-based payment enabler much like Stripe, has raised a $17.5 million Series B round to expand its reach across Southeast Asia. ... This new round, which is one of the largest for a fintech company in Southeast Asia to date, was led by Japan-based SBI Investment"
5. "The founders of OmiseGO are Jun Hasegawa, a Japanese former professional skateboarder turned tech entrepreneur, and Ezra “Don” Harinsut, a financial technology professional from Thailand. ... The team has received a 'startup of the year' award from Thailand's government."
OmiseGO was covered in the 2018 book Inclusive FinTech: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and ICO.
Cunard (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're functionally quoting the same stuff over again. Literally the text you quote from Inclusive Fintech is generic passing coverage with no depth. You appear to be able to find search-engine text matches, but I must question your evaluation of what you find there - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider a subsection of a book to be "generic passing coverage with no depth". I am quoting specific sentences to show why the comment that the coverage "is entirely generic" is incorrect. There is plenty of specific information about why sources think OmiseGO stands out.
Cunard (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cunard passes our GN guidlines therefore an article is warranted. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They may pass GN guidelines, but they fail NCORP (the relevant guidelines for organizations) guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, Cunard posts a wall of text containing too many references. I thought he had agreed to limit his style to 3 at a time. Cunard also appears to ignore WP:NCORP guidelines and instead quotes GNG's sufficient coverage in reliable sources while ignoring the clarifications provided by NCORP. This behaviour is extremely disruptive to the AfD process, especially considering that most of the time, Cunard selectively omits the parts of references that show why the references fail the criteria for establishing notability.
- This pri.org reference fails WP:ORGIND. Cunard's extract omits any mention of the interview. Fail.
- The book "Inclusive FinTech" mentions the company in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fail.
- This Sputnik News reference has no attributed author/journalist, comments on the ICO of their token, reads like an advertisement and has no in-depth information on the company failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Fail.
- Cunard's extract from the TechCrunch reference crucially omits the following sentence: Omise’s core business is enabling online payments, much like Stripe, in Thailand, Japan and Indonesia, but it became interested in the blockchain a few years ago, CEO Jun Hasegawa told TechCrunch in an interview as well as quotations from Hasegawa which confirms the reference is based on an interview, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Fail.
- This Bangkok Post reference is based on an interview with a founder (no mention of that in Cunard's extract) and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent. Fail.
- This next Bangkok Post reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV as it has no in-depth information on the company and relies on quotations from a company officer. Fail.
- This IBTimes reference fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations/interview with company officers. Fail.

As per NCORP, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (My emphasis). Also, If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. None of the sources provided by Cunard above include any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Extracting parts of articles which overall rely extensively on company sources does not meet the standard required. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- This is unfortunately typical. Cunard is good at running searches, but is not good at assessing value of the sources thus found - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing offered is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. As an aside, the article does not even hide its advertorial intent; it opens with: "OmiseGO is a company hoping to build an open..." (emphasis mine). This is all about the company's goals and aspirations, not an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are my responses to HighKing's responses about the sources I provided:
- This pri.org reference fails WP:ORGIND. Cunard's extract omits any mention of the interview. Fail. – the quotation I provided does include a quotation from Vansa Chatikavanij, OmiseGO's managing director. This article from Public Radio International, an American public radio organization, is not merely an interview. It includes independent analysis from Patrick Winn. Winn notes, "Now for some caveats, some of which are substantial." The article includes a quotation from Vansa Chatikavanij, OmiseGo's managing director, about what she thinks the company's challenges are. But it also includes independent analysis from an expert unaffiliated with the company:
  In the blockchain world, confidence in OmiseGO’s mission is not universal. Asked to evaluate its chances of success, Cornell Tech professor and crypto-finance expert Ari Juels says their goals are “extremely ambitious and technically challenging. And they don’t appear to have a substantial research team or partnership.” “So,” he says, “it’s unclear how they’ll pull it off.”
  The professor is skeptical of OmiseGo's chances of success. The independent analysis from journalist Patrick Winn and Cornell Tech professor Ari Juels clearly make this an independent source.
- The book "Inclusive FinTech" mentions the company in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fail. – the book discusses Omise's ICO and provides detailed background about OmiseGo.
- This Sputnik News reference has no attributed author/journalist, comments on the ICO of their token, reads like an advertisement and has no in-depth information on the company failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Fail. – many new agencies including Sputnik News and Agence France-Presse do not include author bylines. The article contains background information about the company and what it is doing.
- Cunard's extract from the TechCrunch reference crucially omits the following sentence: Omise’s core business is enabling online payments, much like Stripe, in Thailand, Japan and Indonesia, but it became interested in the blockchain a few years ago, CEO Jun Hasegawa told TechCrunch in an interview as well as quotations from Hasegawa which confirms the reference is based on an interview, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Fail. – it is good journalistic practice to interview the subject of an article. That is why the article contains quotations from Omise CEO Jun Hasegawa. That the article contains quotations from Jun Hasegawa does not make the article non-independent. The article contains independent analysis from TechCrunch journalist Jon Russell:
  The OMG token sale is notable for a number of reasons. Omise is one of the more established tech companies to take the ICO route, which to date has been favored by young ventures that are typically in the very early stages of building out ambitious and unproven product visions. It is also the first real example of a controlled ICO.
  Omise capped its token sale at $25 million, eschewing the ‘gold rush’ mentality which has seen other companies raise tens of millions of U.S. dollars more as ICOs have gained a reputation for giving backers huge financial gains quickly. Over the past month or so alone, browser startup Brave raised $35 million in under a minute, little-known fintech firm TenX raised $80 million, an ICO for ICO-enabler Bancor drew $150 million while highly controversial project EOS claimed a record after raising over $185 million in the first week of a year-long ICO campaign.
  In contrast, the OMG ICO is capped. Omise initially targeted less than $20 million, but it later increased its ICO target to $25 million due to high demand. The original plan to raise a pre-sale figure of $4 million in OMG coin — a move to lock in traditional investors keen to take part in the token sale — was deemed unfeasible when Omise blew past that figure.
  Jon Russell compared Omise's ICO to ICOs by "browser startup Brave", "little-known fintech firm TenX", "ICO-enabler Bancor", and "highly controversial project EOS". Russell concluded that Omise is "the first real example of a controlled ICO" where the ICO is capped.
  The journalist concludes the article with this paragraph:
  It’s an interesting approach that comes at a time when — following the EOS campaign — many are beginning to believe ICOs are a money grab for companies and the investors who buy into them. The truth is that token sales clearly have broad potential, but we are still in the very early days of realizing exactly what that might be. Increased responsibility and control around ICOs from other companies may help rein in some of the skepticism and allow the tech community to embrace the undoubted potential of this model. It would be a shame to let the bad apples ruin the barrel.
  He calls Omise's controlled ICO "an interesting approach" and puts it in the broader context of a time when "many are beginning to believe ICOs are a money grab for companies and the investors who buy into them" because of EOS' very controversial ICO.
- This Bangkok Post reference is based on an interview with a founder (no mention of that in Cunard's extract) and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent. Fail. – that the article contains quotations from the founder does not make the article non-independent. There is independent analysis about how OmiseGo works. Bangkok Post journalist Suchit Leesa-Nguansuk notes:
  OmiseGo is a public blockchain e-payment platform designed to enable decentralised real-time peer-to-peer value exchanges and payment services across currencies and asset types, as well as across national borders and corporate ledgers.
  Users, for example, will be able to take airline mileage points and convert them into "cash" to pay for groceries anywhere around the world.
- https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/news/1380891/bonanza-or-bubble- This next Bangkok Post reference] fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV as it has no in-depth information on the company and relies on quotations from a company officer. Fail. – I included this article because it says "McDonald's Thailand has partnered with Omise to manage its payment gateway". That the Thailand operations of blue chip company McDonald's are relying on Omise to manage its payment gateway contributes to its notability.
Regarding "I thought he had agreed to limit his style to 3 at a time", I made no such agreement. Please provide a diff for this assertion or withdraw it. I include all sources I have found since different editors consider different sources acceptable in establishing notability.
Cunard (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Once you apply the WP:ORGIND guideline Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject there's hardly anything left and certainly no in-depth information on the company. I can see various opinions on the ICO but the token is not the topic, the company is. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No opinion at this time about this topic, but in general, the probability of topics that are actually notable being deleted would significantly increase if users were limited to posting only three sources at AfD discussions. Such a policy would entirely bias the AfD process, muzzling editors from presenting all valid references to qualify notability. This would skew the AfD process to favor deletion from the start, goes against the grain of WP:NEXIST, and would discourage fair assessment of notability and functional discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I've no problem with someone posting 20 or 30 links if they like, just not to include long passages of selected extracts. Even a short pointer such as "from page 2" or "para 5 page 6" would be fine. But Cunard's walls of text is disruptive and often results in having several pages of text to scroll through. Completely unnecessary - editors are quite capable of reading the references themselves. And on a similar topic, not so long ago towards the beginning of 2018, I used to post "walls of text" analysing each reference and stating reasons why it passed or failed the criteria for establishing notability. I was asked to stop and I did, out of courtesy, when it was pointed out that it was unnecessary and disruptive and offputting to other editors. But it also seems that I and a handful of other editors are in the minority on this topic so I guess there's no consensus to request Cunard to change this behaviour. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I strongly support citing as many finds as practically possible in AfD discussions since this is a critical Wikipedia process. Be that as it may, I do not think it's necessary to cite from these sources as extensively as Cunard does because it's a practice that if imitated and established would lead to extremely unwieldy project texts and would frighten away potential participants. So, the extent of sources should stay, IMVHO, but the extended quotes trimmed. A shave; not a brazilian! Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it comes across as filibustering. And the cites keep failing to be very good? Making up for lack of substance with a sheer flood of words - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the references cited by Cunard above (in typically thorough fashion), the subject is still swimming in the seas of the unborn. The text is full of words such as "hoping to build," "stated objective," "the plan was," and finally "not yet operational." As clear a case of WP:TOOSOON as there can be. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Geerts

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

I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage in major, independent, reliable sources. The article's main statement of significance is that he has lots of followers on Instagram (which isn't a valid claim to notability) and his business which seemingly received passing publicity upon its launch with no lasting effect. SITH (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up plenty of chit-chat on social sites, but no independent substantial coverage (the interview in de Bijenkorf is not WP:RS for notability purposes). Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 N. Ravikiran. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chitravina N Ravikiran

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

More or less a duplicate of N. Ravikiran. This version doesn't seem to be as well filled out, and contains a number of issues, including WP:ELNO issues. While both versions are highly promotional, this one is moreso, and the other version is far older. It's also worth noting that "Chitravina" is a title, and fails WP:ARTICLENAME. Waggie (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Not really a candidate for deletion discussion. This page title should be redirected to N. Ravikiran, with any useful content merged. Note that Chitravina N. Ravikiran (with the dot) already redirects to N. Ravikiran. --Deskford (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and REDIRECT - details already available in above comments. Devopam (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aamra Companies

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

Most of the sources cited are self-published, I doubt the company passes WP:NCORP. SITH (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current page just seems to be a manually-ported advertisement from their company page. Every single cited source is primary and/or dead. Could not find independent, reliable sourcing. Happy to reconsider if reliable sources to demonstrate notability can be found, in English or Bengali. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May become pretty notable in future but it is not notable right now. Shashank5988 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Lisburn

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

Over 80 churches in one town is quite impressive, however only one of those is notable, the rest are not. Article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One notable entry doesn't make for a good list. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the purpose of an article such as this is to serve instead of making individual articles. this is intended to be an inclusive list,not a selective list, and the rules that thei ndividual entities have to be notable do not apply. the intention is that the items get eventually expanded. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists also should not be indiscriminate nor serve as a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the lack of this list would result in individual articles for the non-notable churches. Hallmark example of NOTDIRECTORY. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622

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

WP:NOTNEWS, runway overruns happen all of the time. funplussmart (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is clearly not a WP:ROUTINE incident because the plane was a write-off. Coverage is trivially easy to show. FOARP (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A hull loss in 2018 is quite the odd ocassion. The sources are all there. Of course it should stay.–eggofreason^talk 20:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hull loss of a commercial jet makes the incident notable. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airplane runs off a cliff, hull loss - so does pass the WP:AIRCRASH essay. Some lasting coverage in aviation incident lists following the event - [1][2][3][4]Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep - notable aviation accident, a/c a hull loss, unusual circumstances involved. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Landesförderinstitut

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

Subject is a promotional bank with trivial coverage provided. Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's coverage if you search for "Promotional banks", "State development banks" and so forth these do seem to receive some coverage but I'm not sure I understand enough about this (or speak German well enough) to decide either way. E.g., 1. I'd be very cautious in deleting this article without getting input from a German-speaker. PS - the subject is not A promotional bank, it is promotional banks in general. FOARP (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point here the article at the present state fails notability guidelines of Wikipedia requirements. Creator has been asked to provide singnificant coverage of RS and IS a number of times in new page and AfC and fails to do. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was the present state of the article, or the failure of the creator to do something, a reason for delete? We've got to do WP:BEFORE and consider WP:NEXIST, especially for subject matter (German regional development banks) that just screams "notable". FOARP (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a German bank. A before is hard to do (I dont read German), If you could provide independent, reliable sources (3 sources), and provide inline citations, then I am happy to immediate withdraw the nomination. Thank you CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm saying we need input from a German speaker here. This is a non-BLP article so there's no rush for deletion here. Based on a simple Google Scholar search I see this paper which appears to be about German State Development Banks. This paper appears to have a section on State Development Banks. I also see a reference to another paper (Jung, M. (2003): Landesförderinstitute in Deutschland — Konzepte für eine moderne Mittelstandsfinanzierung in Hamburg, im Auftrag der Bürgengemeinschaft Hamburg) which appears to be about State Development Banks. However, I have only GCSE German and cannot read the articles. FOARP (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links provided but it is of PDF-like format and I cant get them translated. Anyone who reads this post, and if you know German language do assist if possible to provide 3 independent, reliable sources (inline citation in the article), so I would withdraw the nomination at once. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a class of banks, either established by German federal law or common enough in Germany that federal law recognises a class that already exists. Federal/national legal matters in anglophone countries are generally notable, so if these banks are a creature of the law, they'd be notable in the US or Australia or the UK. And if it's a common class that the law merely recognises, the class is definitely notable: legislators wouldn't know what these banks were (and thus wouldn't legislate for them) if they didn't have reliable sources explaining what these banks are, what they do, etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
German comment ~~Does not seem to be an official institution.~~ The name may be misleading. See [5], emphasis mine: Landesförderinstitut – der Name ist ebenso sperrig wie falsch. Denn um eine Einrichtung des Landes handelt es sich nicht. Oder wie es LFI-Chef Roland Machner formulierte: „Wir sind keine langweilige Behörde.“ Es ist vielmehr ein „Geschäftsbereich der Nord LB“, also der Norddeutschen Landesbank, wie am Eingang zu lesen ist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)(striked after the following comment had already been sent ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

ToBeFree, see my comment. Do you think it's my second situation (a common kind of bank that the law merely addresses), or do you think I've misunderstood entirely? The latter is quite possible :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Additional note: The "Nord LB" mentioned in the "ostsee-zeitung" is Norddeutsche Landesbank. The Landesförderinstitut of the state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is a business branch of the Norddeutsche Landesbank. The "Landesförderinstitut"s are, by their statute, acting by governmental commission. The German Wikipedia article mentions §5 of the following page as a source for this statement: https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_vbl_detail_text?anw_nr=6&vd_id=14982&ver=8&val=14982&sg=&menu=1&vd_back=N
Official German law pages are very reliable but not "independent" sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following law has been passed by the Landtag of North Rhine-Westphalia: [6] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: These seem to have been created by law. Took me quite a while to understand enough to be able to say that boldly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you the input and assistance of @Nyttend and ToBeFree:. Truly appreciate it. It seems like the same thing/case of a very credible academics or reliable publication house publishes serious academic books yet independent sources are hard to come by. Thanks again. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Kapustina

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

Of the 3 sources given, two are about her boyfriend. Her “notability” seems to be about being a WAG, not for her modeling career. No sources I could find pertain to her career. I tried doing an A7 but it was declined, so I brought it here. Trillfendi (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found no WP:SIGCOV. Coverage is all simply of her as a WAG to Alonso, not coverage of her per se. FOARP (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMODEL due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. As Trillfendi says, her status as a wife of someone is irrelevant because notability isn't inherited. SITH (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways

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

All five of the sub articles have been nominated for deletion, and all of the intro content and refs. are duplicative of Unused highway. This is actually the fourth AfD nomination of this page (previous 3 had radically different content and/or title). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All lists are unlikely to survive AfD. Redirect to Unused highway if desired. Ajf773 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—nothing here is worth keeping. Even if the sub-lists were retained, they should be links from Unused highway, not from this page. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly merge with Unused highway. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant article Spiderone 09:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe collect all unused/abandoned highway coordinate links into one big list, sub-categorized by country and listed by city, for the road enthusiasts? You get to delete all your "pointless" articles, and we still get a page for ourselves. Xninetynine (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)X99[reply]

This article was already like that, was split a long time ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:24C2:698:D0A1:B3FD (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no purpose even if the subarticles are kept. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the related articles gone, it serves absolutely no purpose. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Roberts (actor)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR as he has not had significant roles in multiple productions. PROD removed in March when a reference was added to the article, so it now has IMDb (user-generated, non-reliable) and a link to a movie he did, that only lists him along other non-notable actors. Searches could not find anything to satisfy WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:NACTOR with only sources cited being affiliated and IMDB. Speaking of, I've removed the bulk of the article per WP:BLP because the vast majority of its assertions were not supported by either of the two sources cited. SITH (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Valentine (actor)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR, as he only had a couple of TV appearances as non-named characters some years ago. Nothing that could be considered a significant role to clear the actor notability guideline. I also performed some searches but nothing came up to satisfy WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it just cites IMDb. Sources are thin on the ground when it comes to significant coverage, so it looks like he fails WP:NACTOR. SITH (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Typical problem with child actor articles: no significant roles. FOARP (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Not every actor who has appeared in a TV show is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, sadly I think this needs deleting Cls14 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupathipalem Reservoir Scheme

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

No indication of notability WP:NBUILD. There are thousands of reservoirs in India, why should this one be any notable. This reservoir is neither over a notable water body nor is intended for any notable towns. Daiyusha (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Butler

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

Not a notable actress. Her roles are minor and she is not receiving outside coverage of note. only (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything significant and reliable outside of IMDb. I don't mind an external link to IMDb because it's a useful resource. But it's a database; it's in the name. Database entries don't imply any notability whatsoever, you practically just have to exist and be an actor to have an IMDb page. So when an external link to IMDb is all an article cites, and I can't find sources that show the subject is notable, I'm going to vote delete. Someone really needs to write an essay on this... SITH (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines - no reliable sources, and I can't find any significant coverage of her. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lists no reliable coverage and my own search didn't find anything significant, although searching is difficult because her name is not unusual. There is no indication that she meets any of the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyHandle

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

This appears to be a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. I'm not finding any secondary reliable sources that provide primary coverage on this article subject (definitely not any significant coverage that's required in WP:GNG), and nothing in terms of news, educational articles, or documents. The article itself appears completely worded like an advertisement and I was borderline on tagging it for G11, but I felt that a nomination and discussion was a safer option and more appropriate in this case. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's not notable, it exists only to advertise the product but it does so in a way that makes it sound like a product manual and it's difficult to pin down exactly where the unambiguous advertising is, but meh, I wouldn't object to a G11. SITH (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CSV application support

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

Multiple issues here:

WP:NOTDIR and fails WP:CSC, thus fails WP:N;
Violates WP:EL;
No sources referenced, although this could perhaps be fixed at least partially;
"Unmaintained" since April 2015 or April 2017, according to maintenance templates;
May not be important enough to merit its own article. There's Comma-separated values § Application support.

It doesn't look like this article can be salvaged. If everything was resolved, there'd be nothing or almost nothing remaining in the article. Very few articles link to this article. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree: Just because you personally don't see the point of the article isn't a reason argue for deletion. Regarding a lack of sources: every external link you're objecting to is one of the external sources. If you look at the history of the CSV article you point to, you'll see that this used to be a section in that page but it was moved out into its own page to keep the CSV page focused on its intended topic. Christopher Rath (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a lack of sources: every external link you're objecting to is one of the external sources. They only seem to claim the mere existence of something, not their subject importance in context of the article with WP:RS. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also my point of proposal here is WP:TNT, not [I] personally don't see the point of the article. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:FAILN and is an indiscriminate grouping of material. Totally unsourced article (showing since 2006), hanging around apparently mocking a multitude of policies and guidelines. Indiscriminately links, that looks impressive, but does not offer any "support" for notability. A search did not find anything to show anything either. Maybe it should not have been moved. Of course, if it had the same lack of sources while in the other article just maybe it shouldn't have been there either. In 2015 and 2017 issues were raised and a merge request placed. Nothing was dealt with. "Seeing" or "not seeing" a supposed point is not the issue. We have policies and guidelines, as well as broad community consensus, that notability- be established by reliable sources. Just because someone "likes" an article does not mean we should have it either. I can't even see a basis for a stand alone article if it were blown to bits and started again from scratch. What would be the sources? Produce a couple so I can look. Otr500 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remain: The list is not indiscriminate by any English definition of that word. It is, however, a list. Christopher Rath (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Specifically there is nothing showing that THE LIST (rather than simply the items in the list) is notable. FOARP (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom on everything but also as well as WP:NOTHOWTO. This looks more like a programming guide rather than an encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retain If deleted all the information should be ported into the Comma-separated values article where it wouldn't fit neatly. Far better, as at present, to use a hat note to annex-out lists from the main text pages. Sources are given in the form of external links – they should be formatted properly but they do exist. Doing that would avoid the WP:EL criticism. The list clearly is not a programming guide, it merely points the reader to libraries and modules. To fall under WP:NOTHOWTO there would need to be explicit code examples showing calls to the libraries. In short, all that needs to be done is to sort out the references, checking that they are still relevant/up to date. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am trying to be open minded but can understand why there has been no references added since 2006. I was sincere in my source request (since I couldn't find anything) for someone to "Produce a couple so I can look". A reply was "Sources are given in the form of external links – they should be formatted properly but they do exist.". It was also offered above "every external link you're objecting to is one of the external sources".

I randomly picked some "external links", not just a link to an article, but a possible reference: Ruby on Rails framework, to try to black link and use as a reference. It is a self-published anonymous (Posted by rafaelfranca) blog that begins "Hi everyone,", noting that Rails 5.2.2 has been released. Links can be followed that lead to another anonymous blog (under "News" posted by dhh). Undeterred I scrolled down and chose xmlsh, an expired domain parked at GoDaddy for purchase. I then clicked on cassava and I arrived at GitHub where I can sign up or sign in to watch, star, or fork a repository (the term used on the link). It also states above "...it merely points the reader to libraries and modules.". I gave it my best shot when apparently proponents just gave comments but there are still notability issues and this list does not follow Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Have a Happy Holiday, Otr500 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. No coverage outside advertising. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - PennLive is a statewide publication in Pennsylvania and appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Lebanon Daily News is a local paper for Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia Business Journal appears to be an RS for Philadeplhia business news. This book appears to be an RS for brewing in Delaware. It seems to verge on WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL but it's already a pretty big chain as well. Article need clean-up to remove WP:PROMO material though, but AFD is not clean-up FOARP (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One has to wonder if the nominator was too busy rattling off all these acronyms instead of actually looking to see if a variety of quality sources exist. Turns out the nom's assertion of "No coverage outside advertising" is false. Here are two stories from the Harrisburg Patriot-News; here's a couple stories from the Greenville News; several from the Wilmington News Journal; couple from the Delmarva Daily Times; this from the Camden Courier-Post; a story by the Baltimore Business Journal; another by the Newark Post, and several from the Philadelphia Inquirer. But allow to me to complain real quick about those acronyms. A quick glance at the article's history would have revealed that this article was created by a Wikipedia Education Program student. Oblique statements like "Fails WP:NCORP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ... Fails WP:SIGCOV." are hardly going to encourage new contributors to stay with the project. Whether the nom didn't bother googling for sources or didn't believe the sources satisfied the notability criteria, they could have taken an extra 30 seconds to write out something more friendly and clear to a new user, e.g., "I don't think there are enough quality, independent sources covering this company in depth to satisfy the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia." 2601:47:4001:E830:783C:C8EE:D1BA:7FB0 (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One has to wonder if the crass paid editor above who has been busy rattling off whole bunch of churnalism articles instead of actually looking to determine what these acronyms actually mean, and how worthy the churnalism article are? Now they have listed each of the pages in turn, I will go through each of them, and examine them. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having examined them, most are covered by WP:ROUTINE as it is the restuarant critic providing a listing inluding an address or organisation, that are basest of coverage, and very low quality, listing what it does, high spots of specific foods, menus etc. Several are straight up blogs and are non RS. The rest an financial information akin to startup that it covered by WP:NCORP. Pure run of the mill mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Scope Creep, I'm not a paid editor and I've never been to Iron Hill before; I stumbled upon this article when researching the WP Education Program. (In fact, I'm a former user who left the project several years ago because I got tired of a culture where users spent more effort policing others than writing content. Consider this consent for a CU to run my IP if you are not inclined to believe me.) Back to this AfD: None of the sources I listed are "straight up blogs" (hence why I also listed the publication names); they're all reputable news organizations. Obviously, scientific journals are not going to be writing about restaurant companies or breweries – restaurant critics and food writers will be the ones. When you look at these sources in aggregate (and you should have looked at potential sources before you even nom'd this instead of making someone else do the work of finding them; remember: "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet"), the coverage extends beyond just openings and closings to information about the background of the company, the business strategy, corporate expansion, a partnership with a college, food offerings, recognition/awards, even a conflict with a city. This indicates that there has been a diversity of coverage – all of it independent, so it does not fail WP:ORGIND as you falsely asserted. It also passes WP:SIGCOV despite your contrary assertion; the coverage directly addresses the company beyond trivial mentions. And finally, I believe it passes WP:ORGDEPTH in that the examples of coverage above (which are not the only sources out there, either; this was merely from a cursory Google search) provide an "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The coverage exceeds "brief mentions" and it would clearly be possible to incorporate the information from these sources to write more than a stub about the brewery. You argue that the coverage is routine, but I would counter that by pointing out even the stories about openings and expansions go beyond the perfunctory, two-paragraph notices you sometimes see in a newspaper's business section. Instead, these sources tend to include additional information, such as the company's background, how it's approached expansion, and how it fits into its markets. And inexplicably, Scope Creep, while the story currently has mediocre sources that should be improved, you actually removed a reliable newspaper source as well as sentence containing encyclopedic information (number of locations; expansion plans) that could easily have been reworded to a neutral tone. I think it's bad form to be removing a reliable source from an article and then nominating it for deletion partially on the basis of lack of independent sources. 2601:47:4001:E830:80F0:2FCC:FFEF:A78B (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with editor above that the nom could have been more helpfully worded. I don't think simply stating "It's churnalism" really addresses the sourcing from local/regional/state-wide news sources in multiple states available for this brewery/chain. I think it should also be pointed out that this brewery/restaunrant chain does rise above (just) run-of-the-mill material since it has now existed for mre than 20 years, has opened a relatively large number of locations, and is part of a prominent movement in gastronomy (microbreweries). It also has substantial coverage in guides to breweries (see, e.g., 1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources have been identified and rejecting all of them as "churnalism" is one editor's opinion which is justified neither by policies nor by guidelines. Calling another editor "crass" is as objectionable as an accusation of paid editing without evidence. Mentioning a the geographic area that a regional business operates in is encyclopedic coverage, as is mentioning the number of locations. Removing that content is inexplicable. A trout to Scope Creep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a very small COI here - I've actually eaten at Iron Hill 3 or 4 times. Mostly it's a fairly nice brewpub - better food than most, most of the beers are too hoppy (what else is new?). All that personal stuff means next to nothing, except that I know the business actually exists - unlike many other articles that come through AfD. I never have seen notable articles in the wild about it. But some of the articles above look ok. Also the 2 Hagley Museum and Library refs - sorta "oral history" interviews about the brew pub industry - are from a well-known business history archive (funded by the DuPonts). I'd consider the 2 together as one reliable source. Which puts me right on the line notable/non-notable. Maybe the personal stuff does matter (nice prime rib Sunday mornings). Feel free to ignore this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indicates that there is enough coverage. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact courierpostonline as well. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for companies. While there is some coverage by reliable sources, the coverage is passing or otherwise insignificant. With its promotional content now removed, the article does little more than assert that this company exists. It cannot be meaningfully expanded unless more significant coverage is found, and that seems unlikely given that this discussion has already run for three weeks. -- Scott (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Adventures

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

Largely written like a promo piece or travel magazine listing. Nothing has been presented to establish notability of the company beyond its pure existence. There are plenty of mentions of the kind of "if you plan to do this, here are a few companies that offer x-y-z", however this does not establish notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are passing mentions. Csgir (talk)

Delete: let's analyse the sources. Originally on the fence, other users' analysis plus the sockpuppetry revelation has tipped it to delete for me.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
VisitReykjavik.is	WP:SPS	~ WP:SPS can be good for business details but may embellish reviews.	Having a website doesn't connote notability.	✘ No
NZ Herald	Not affiliated.	Unfamiliar with publication, assuming good faith.	AA is mentioned once in passing.	✘ No
ProjectExpedition.com	? Looks like an aggregator site.	~ It doesn't make many claims about the company to be assessed.	Looks like a directory or automated business entry.	✘ No
Grapevine.is	Sponsored content.	See above.	Mentions the company twice and displays some photos, I guess that is significant enough.	✘ No
Iceland Monitor		No reason to suspect unreliability.	Mentions AA's CEO's view on a particular policy. Passing.	✘ No
Adventure Travel News	Appears unaffiliated / unsponsored.	? Something about the title including a .is doesn't seem quite right, unfamiliar with the publication so leaving it as a question mark.		? Unknown
Cleveland.com		No reason to suspect unreliability.	Blog-type post about their trip. Only mentions of AA are when they say they booked through them.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

However, the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent are major publications and the company is recommended in lists by them (1, 2, 3, 4. Is it passing? Kind of, but taken holistically I can't decide whether it passes GNG. Either way, the article needs some serious cleanup to conform with WP:NPOV. SITH (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major player in the Icelandic tourist industry with plenty of coverage from the national media RÚV Vísir Morgunblaðið Fréttablaðið. The article is clearly promotional and needs work but the company is notable. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extendive coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional article. The sourced content is mostly directory of reviews (which only include subtle mentions of the company) that don't offer much to supporting WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have removed the promotional material (list of minor partners, list of minor awards, list of passing mentions in the media) and attempted to present it neutrally. There was not a whole lot of non-promotional material so it is fairly short at the moment. Although they are indeed a fairly large tourism company in Iceland, they are simply a normal tourism company that offers activities X. They have not done anything particularly notable. – Þjarkur (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great, thanks for this. I've had another look at the editor and I have now decided to leave a COI message on their talk page. The edits do give the impression of professional editing. One of the first edits was to linkspam the article about Iceland with Arctic Adventures, they went on to plug articles of chefs with links back to the external websites of catering colleges they visited (dubious), plus a few other activities around article creation of companies and linkspam. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author is confirmed sock master as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LFWG _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as company does not meet the clear requirements for significant coverage in WP:NCORP. This company verifiably exists and clearly has marketed itself well. But that's not notability. It's great that a two line promotional description shows up in the Guardian and BBC sources, but the famous media names do not make the coverage significant. WP:NCORP is clear that "the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source." Likewise, the coverage in Icelandic sources is largely of the routine variety repeating press release information (e.g. X bought Y and now has N employees, 2 quotes from company spokesperson/PR about bright future), and WP:NCORP is clear that "the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO." While there is no doubt that this company is interesting, they do not seem to be notable in Wikipedia terms. Bakazaka (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bakazaka. Also WP:WHYN explains that significant coverage is required so that we can write an article, rather than simply a few sentences. There isn't the detailed coverge needed from which to source a proper article.--Pontificalibus 12:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuta Suzuki (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, never played in a professional league. Also fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's probably obvious, but note that this Yuta Suzuki (b. 1990) is not the same as the goalkeeper (b. 1987) in jawiki [7]. Bakazaka (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' I disagree with Bakazaka that the difference is probably obvious, and I suspect anyone looking for the more famous soccer player with the homophonic name probably assumed this was him, which, if not violating BLP directly certainly violates its spirit. If the page is kept, it should be moved promptly and an article on 鈴木雄太 created. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seventh-Day Adventist churches in Jamaica

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ajf773 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 15:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIRECTORY Catrìona (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web hosting service for religious organizations, nor is it a directory. Readers can use Google to find the Adventist directory/yearbook sites, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to serve as a database clone or backup copy of those sites. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sheldybett (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rojam

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

This company, which once operated a single nightclub, has extant sources that are just barely enough to prove it exists and isn't a hoax, but certainly not enough to demonstrate notability. A basic BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) is somewhat foiled by the fact that "Rojam" is a better known as a type of Toyota custom mod kit. But, insofar it's possible to tell, it fails the BEFORE. Chetsford (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi there. I put a lot of work in to adding more sources to this article after it was recently listed as proposed deletion. I removed the tag in line with having resolved the issues. Having done that, I do not appreciate your mischaracterisation of the work. Factual inaccuracies include:

"This company": it is in fact a series of companies operating multinationally (Japan, HK, China), one of which is stock listed on a major international stock market and therefore having numerous investors.
"A single nightclub": the article contains cited references to multiple nightclubs, one of which was quite famous in its day (enough to host multiple major international acts, some of which are cited), in addition to various music and entertainment interests.
"notability": A stock market listed (also known as "public company") on a major stock exchange is by definition notable. Similarly, an early operation in Shanghai's music history is by definition notable, as it is now a major world city.
BEFORE: There was very little information about China available in English at the time of these activities, which is why Google, English newspapers and published English books would not reference it. It will be listed in some period guides to Shanghai, but they are unlikely to be indexed.

In short - yes this is clearly notable place, I have put lots of work in to it. The correct manner to enhance such an article is to do better (less lazy, monolingual, online-only) research. prat (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A stock market listed (also known as "public company") on a major stock exchange is by definition notable. That's incorrect. WP:LISTED does not set-out that any company with a publicly traded stock is automatically notable. There was very little information about China available in English at the time of these activities, which is why Google, English newspapers and published English books would not reference it. While I question the accuracy of the statement that there was "very little information about China available" in the early 2000s, WP:BEFORE requires only a basic search by the nom which I have met. You are, however, free to independently engage in a complex or archival records search, or to provide offline or non-English RS. However, this does require demonstration RS exist, not simply assertion they exist. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED as the company is a constituent of the primary Hong Kong stock exchange, which is sufficient to indicate notability as argued in WP:AFD/C.C.P.C.P.

I note the umbrella company has been called Media Asia Group for a while now, just FYI, discussion of subsidiary businesses in the article is fine, but the title should be changed. — shard t 14:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.68.103 (talk)

@86.186.68.103: That appears to be a "different" Media Asia at best. I remember during my Hong Kong film fandom phase watching a bunch of Media Asia films produced in the early 90s, before this article's subject was founded in 1996 and/or 1998. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I'm half-tempted to say TNT delete given that a quick Google search indicated that the things this company is known for are things our article currently gives the impression of carefully glossing over. According to both this and this its establishment was the cause of a downturn in Komuro's career, and the latter source says it was founded in 1996 as a joint venture with Rupert Murdoch called "TK News" before being rebranded (the former source dates this to 1998, although it implies they were separate entities) as "Rojam Entertainment". Conversely, of the sources currently cited in the article, this one doesn't mention Rojam Entertainment and doesn't hint that Media Asia was ever known by any other name, while saying it was listed in 2001, long before this source was published under the Rojam name. Nothing in this source nor this one indicates that the identically named night club is linked to the entertainment company, although a user comment on the former implies that a now-dead link to the official rojam.com website mentions the club. I couldn't find any sources indicating that the company was founded in 1988, although this kinda leads me to suspect that the 1988 date relates to a separate company called Media Asia. This kind of clumsy editing is frankly shocking coming from any experienced editor, let alone an admin, but those issues are matters for ANI, or perhaps ArbCom; the topic is notable, so the article should be kept, then blanked and rewritten. I wouldn't oppose redirecting to Tetsuya Komuro in the meantime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should ping Pratyeka (talk · contribs), since it's kinda slimy to say things like the above "behind an editor's back". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I am pretty much disgusted with community on this site. If you see an issue, mark it or improve it, don't start a bureaucratic process to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree this should probably be kept but split. Just don't delete content I've spent time adding in response to deletion. prat (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to a redirect as per Hijiri 88. Chetsford (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seventh-day Adventist churches in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, if a number of them were sufficently notable to have articles, this list might be appropriate, otherwise no.--Pontificalibus 10:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed from "merge" as none of the items have pages, the link is to a suburb page. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, plus the fact that few elements of the list are notable enough to even have their own pages. Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web hosting service for religious organizations, nor is it a directory. Readers can use Google to find the Adventist directory/yearbook sites, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to serve as a database clone or backup copy of those sites. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samoan Assemblies of God churches in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NOTDIRECTORY to Samoan Assemblies of God in New Zealand Incorporated (although that probably needs moving to WP:COMMONNAME whatever that is). If a number of these were sufficently notable to have seperate articles, this list might be appropriate, otherwise no.--Pontificalibus 10:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 15:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web hosting service for religious organizations, nor is it a directory. Readers can use Google to find the church directory site, and there's no good reason for Wikipedia to be a database clone or backup site for this religious organization. Not clear how a redirect would be advantageous to a user typing a phrase into the search box, but at least it doesn't say "list of" in the title, so no strong opinion about that either way. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Duffy

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

Autobiography which doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: CSD should be expanded to include something like Any article where it is clear, either by the content of the article or the account name of the article creator, that the subject of the article has written it, is eligible for speedy deletion per A12. I cannot remember an autobiography that hasn't gone through WP:AFC surviving AFD, they all seem to get deleted; for good reason, so why not expand the CSD? Anyway, yeah, source searches show no notability per WP:ANYBIO. SITH (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an autobiography that is purely self-promotion. While that isn't itself a reason for deletion, the subject clearly doesn't meet any notability guidelines (WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG etc.). Jmertel23 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published book, no reviews, pure self-promotion valereee (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Even amount of passing mentions are very low. Rzvas (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Self-promotional autobiography created by a single-purpose account. Zero notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete for author of a self-published memoir. my searches found no coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India Greens - The Green Party of India

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

Non-notable party, as a draft previously deleted at MfD, and still hasn't independent in-depth coverage. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even a registered party yet. Additionally, while they get lots of mentions in the news, it's always them making a quote - there isn't reliable coverage of them. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt not even registered, just started to exist. Salt because of the MfD, which shows it's repeatedly recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; but there should be a way for evaluating when they have become notable again in the future. Who knows, there may be a massive green movement in India over the next decade, and the party will have enough RS to warrant a page.Happy monsoon day 22:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A future article creator can always either ask the salting admin, or take it to DELREV. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough indeed.Happy monsoon day 21:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kpg jhp jm 08:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flakiss

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

A quick search results in very few hits. A lack of sources indicate this artist has no WP:SIGCOV and may therefore not have WP:GNG general notability. The artist may therefore be an unsuitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage already in the article, with Billboard covering her twice. She was also covered in People in Espanol, which I added to the article. She has significant coverage in multiple independent sources over time. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant coverage exists in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage in multiple sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Linked from the main page, at the DYK section. Criterion 6 for the speedy keep applicability is met. (non-admin closure) -- Flooded with them hundreds 12:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts

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

This is a blatant Indian nationalist WP:POVFORK of ISI activities in India. What is the need of an entire article for an alleged slogan/doctrine? None of the sources cited treat this phrase independently of ISI activities in India or Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Neither do any of the sources give this supposed doctrine primary coverage: WP:SIGCOV. FreeKashmiri (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starcity

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

advert of nnonotable business - Altenmann >talk 04:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company has an intriguing business model, but it needs a few more years to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Pop Festival

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

After a consensus in Portuguese Wikipedia, I deleted this article there. The English Wikipedia article has the same problems: there are not reliable sources and its content isn't encyclopedic. This article about a Brazilian subject, if it wasn't considered notable by Portuguese Wikipedia, I think it should be deleted here too. Regards! —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 02:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Del failed to find reasonable sources.- Altenmann >talk 04:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Araya

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and fails GNG as well. Daiyusha (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, fails WP:GNG and NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a fully pro league or gained significant coverage Spiderone 11:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This article appears to rise to the level of significant coverage but I couldn't find anything else. FOARP (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't meet the GNG - almost all online coverage is routine (single mentions in match reports, transfer news, etc.). Jogurney (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Override relist - consensus is abundantly clear. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Rose

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

Businessperson. The article is a thinly veiled CV written by what looks like an undeclared paid editor, DontBlinkNow. Tagged as an advertisement since 2014. Even if she is notable, this needs WP:TNT-ing and recreation by a neutral editor. Sandstein 12:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the rationale given by nom does suffice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've gone through all the refs and removed puffery, deadlinks, and references that didn't support the assertions, and frankly there's not much left. valereee (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn as either "author, entrepreneur, social media strategist, keynote speaker" or "trainer". Bio spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete as mere PROMO for a non-notable "author, entrepreneur, social media strategist, keynote speaker and trainer." E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearer consensus? How can it be any clearer? valereee (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Moreira

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

Article created for a globally blocked account. The article has only two references, one is a dead link and the other is a press release. Nothing proves his notability. SirEdimon (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No plausible claim of notability is made. A university student who is also a journalist, but no information about his journalism is provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google search turned up nothing but blogs written by the subject with zero significant coverage about the subject. Fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Results mostly comes from N10 Entretenimento which is not a reliable source for establishing notability for this person. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy-cry film

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of film-related deletion discussions. cmh^TC 03:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite some passing uses of this neologism in 2009, it clearly has not become established as a real term. As per WP:NEO, an article on a neologism should not be supported by uses of a new term, but rather by reliable secondary sources that talk about the term. I have not been able to find any such sources. Even uses of the term online are almost nil since the few references in 2009. Moreover, much of the article is original research, and citations 1+2 (that purport to support most of the text, including almost all the examples) are broken links. Some other citations do not use the term as a noun, or do not use the term at all. The article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and because, as per WP:NEO, the page may be a (stale and failed) attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. cmh^TC 03:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck above; already listed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A non-notable neologism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable secondary sources that mention this neologism. I also agree that this article is loaded with OR --Zingarese talk · contribs 14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd never heard this term and was unable to find any reliable source using it, nor was I able to find it in any of the available sources referenced in the article. Poltair (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven (Alice Cooper character)

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

Not notable. --wooden superman 09:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YCL064C

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

There is a good article on the Saccharomyces Genome Database allowing readers to access info on individual yeast genes but no purpose in having a stub about a single one in isolation. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should never propose content for deletion because we either don't understand it, or think there aren't yet enough related articles to make them relevant. We should add more content, not delete what we don't like. I have added a suite of references to demonstrate that this is a notable gene. I hope the proposer will look at this video (6mins 20seconds in) to appreciate how important genome articles on Wikipedia are to the scientific community. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm very perplexed by the notion that we shouldn't have articles on topics included in external databases. That obviously wouldn't extend to external encyclopedias and reference books though I'm not sure where the difference lies. However, I expect I have got the wrong end of the stick. And this isn't the sole article about a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast gene (see Category:Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes) but I worry that saying that may make matters worse. Thank you to Nick for adding references. Thincat (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro de Moura Ribeiro

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

I appear to have made a mistake in accepting this from draft 6 months ago. There's actually insufficient evidence of notability -- almost all of the positions listed are just student offices. Apparent self promotion, previously deleted from the pt WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mistakes happen, even if they aren't always so frankly owned to; this one seems quite easy to remedy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a platform for (self-)promotion (WP:NOTPROMO). Bakazaka (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I saw this draft back in the spring, and rejected it the first time it was put in the AFC queue because at that time it was written in Portuguese rather than English, but I didn't keep it on my radar after the creator translated it. There's nothing here that's "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL, but he doesn't get over WP:GNG either — the article is not based on reliable source coverage about him, but on a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people or things. And since this was its creator's only contribution to Wikipedia, it indeed looks like a self-promotional violation of our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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