Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 February	24 February >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobscot

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

No reliable independent sources for notability. Two minor awards, and a great deal of publicity from press releases. (some of the references are even from prweb) The most substantial item, in entrepreneur.com, is written by the co-founder of the company. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see scads of press releases and a couple stories in Honolulu Star-Advertiser which is local coverage and therefore not helpful for notability. WP:TNT, start over at future date if better stuff exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bri. This has long been maintained by a COI account--possibly paid--and bears the public relations scars to prove it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no independant RS for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:12, 1 March 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 33

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO. Paradoctor (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reviews in horror film reliable sources such as Dread Central here, Aint it Cool News here Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any substantial RS for this... seems to be a low budget straight, no name actors or crew, straight to DVD effort. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews I gave are substantial coverage in reliable sources for horror films as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources and the film is also of interest for the first main performance of Kane Hodder who played Jason Vorhees in the Friday 13th films Atlantic306 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see why it wouldn't pass WP:GNG and does appear to pass WP:NFILM. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:18, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leena Hiltunen

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

Non notable pornographic actress, No evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ENT & significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where would we find coverage? According to the available sources, Hiltunen appeared in a total of 2 films, both in the 1970s. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that Fäbodjäntan is probably the best known Swedish porno movie from that period, has quite a "cult" status and is still regularilly reissued on DVD. /FredrikT (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RS - listings on two actor databases, which have very little information on them, no other RS. Fails WP:ENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 07:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched quite a bit for sources about her and have found nothing. Hiltunen left the business quite abrubtly after her two movies according to Sundgren, N.P. (1984). Moster Svea i tidsspegeln (in Swedish). Askelin & Hägglund. p. 155. ISBN 978-91-7684-045-0.. A post (that sounded genuine) on a Swedish forum mentioned that a journalist working on a newspaper article about Swedish vintage porn had tracked down Hiltunen some time in the 90s. She had refused to give an interview, but said she regretted ever getting involved in the industry. So, not very likely that we ever get this article up to GNG/BASIC. FredrikT is correct, a redirect to Fäbodjäntan would be an appropriate navigational help. Sam Sailor 01:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, no verifiable source, does not pass WP:GNG or PORNBIO. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:20, 2 March 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. Significant improvements to the article since the nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mo (Korean surname)

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

Merge with Mao (surname): Many Korean surnames are sinitic in nature, and has a corresponding Chinese surname. We can turn those Chinese surname pages to an Asian one, containing all the applicable surnames. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why should we make into one article? And it is impossible. Because a Korean surname doesn't contains only one Hanja. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And you, User:Garam, have cited no sources that attest to the fact that Mo is actually a Korean surname. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I add references now. --Garam (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has sufficient sources focused specifically on the Korean surname to demonstrate its separate notability regardless of its linguistic origins in another country. Additionally, the merge proposal doesn't work because "Mo" in Korean could correspond either to Chinese Mou (surname) (牟, doesn't even have an article) or Mao (surname). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Money

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

Activist organization -- the article is sourced to almost entirely to primary sources and opinion pieces, with promotional narratives, off-topic material, and announcements of future initiatives of the organization. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or rather, "edit then keep". The "edit" part is because the page has been radically changed in the past 48 hours by a well meaning but clearly inexperienced editor that appears unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. It is unfortunate that SPECIFICO has chosen to try and get the page deleted rather than simply revert it back to it's previous, healthier state. With regard primary sources - it should be noted that there are some very high quality secondary sources that are referenced, including The Wall St Journal, New Statesman, The Guardian, the BBC. Reissgo (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only secondary sources are cited for trivia or from press release announcements of various sorts. No discussion of significance or expert analysis of anything notable. It's a self-prmoting advocacy group -- including promotional Wikipedia editing from all appearances. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is true of most of the sources, however at least one of the Guardian articles is more than this -- the coverage seems to be nearly but not quite "No discussion of significance", IMO FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, because the arguments presented by Specifico (links of interest?) to delete it are simply not correct. There is no policy to delete all think tanks articles.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Could you show where Specifico has claimed there is such a policy about think-tanks? And why you believe the arguments presented are not correct. Questioning notability and sources is valid. FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the moment, to enable it to be improved if possible. Then perhaps its notability (which I do believe is marginal at best) can be properly re-assessed. I partially agree with Reissgo that recent edits are a little haphazard, but would not support simply reverting as there has also been some relevant material added. FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and quite well sourced: just needs some improvement. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Notability should be made clear in the leading sentences or paragraphs, e.g. with clear statements about membership or influence. I find that unclear now, since the founder and the international movement are not plainly notable or clearly described. Sources are strong enough. I am unsure about deletion; I don't want to read all the sources or make other readers do it. -- econterms (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell the sources turn out to be blog pieces by non-notable authors, including some in otherwise acceptable newspapers, or they're primary-sourced to Positive Money's own website, or they're incidental snippets precipitated by press releases or other non-noteworthy events. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about notability - I'll just point out that if you do a search in Hansard for the phrase "positive money" (in quotes), you will see that this organisation has been mentioned seven times in the UK parliament. Additionally both the former and current directors have been a talking head on the BBC and other channels on a regular basis talking about banking issues. They have shared panel discussions with the likes of the Financial Times chief economist Martin Wolf, the head of the FSA Lord Adair Turner, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ed Balls... Meetings that they have organised have been addressed by MPs from at least three different political parties including the current head of the green party. I could go on in this vein if required. There is no question of a lack of notability of the organisation. Reissgo (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources for the article seem relevant and not "primary sourced" or "blogs" -- Wall Street Journal Bloomberg Guardian New Statesman FrankP (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The last one is just a non-notable opinion piece in the New Statesman. Th others don't seem to describe anything of much significance. "FT chief economist Martin Wolf" is a newspaper reporter, not a notable economist. etc etc. There's no doubt they've cobbled together some public relations exposure (including Wikipedia editors from time to time), but I don't see anything that we would find notable. I mean, placards on the street is not all that uncommon. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that Martin Wolf is a newspaper reporter and not a notable economist is utter nonsense. As a response to the 2008 crash, the UK government set up a five man "Independent Commission on Banking" - Martin Wolf was on the panel. He was not there as a journalist. Reissgo (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of a UK campaign group, to get a write-up the WSJ is not an everyday occurrence. You do seem to be straining too hard to minimise these reliable sources, instead of seeing them in perspective. The notability is not huge but it is not non-existent either. FrankP (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject is trivially evidently notable. (It needs some serious work over, for sure, but that is another matter.) And notability if, of course, an attribute that's assessed irrespective of the subject's worth per se. Damn you, Herostratus!.. :-) The Gnome (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see an advocacy group with a well-run PR campaign, and little more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chicago plan. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Program for Monetary Reform

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

Appears to be a hoax or urban legend. No secondary RS in article or Google search. Being promoted by fringe monetary policy advocacy groups. SPECIFICO talk

I've just had a look at our The Chicago Plan Revisited article and it appears to be just about entirely primary-sourced and OR. I removed a few of the blog-sourced and misrepresented sections of text and there's not much left of any substance. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you believe it's a hoax? Did some research on it and haven't found anyone disputing it, in fact found a journal article possibly mentioning it: [1] SportingFlyer (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's disputing it because the article is not real. Academics don't cite or discuss fake articles. The story that this is a key policy document written by one of the top economists of his day, Fisher, but never published and never cited until this mysterious copy showed up -- ostensibly from a single obscure library -- strains credulity. Hundreds of University libraries would have retained copies of a significant document by eminent monetary economist Fisher. And the context in which it was "discovered" is to bolster a fringe activist campaign. Not in the course of research, library cataloguing, or any other plausible routine. Note that there has been discussion of 100% reserve banking from time to time, including by Fisher. But that is not the same as the claim as to the existence or content of this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, from 1993 (before all this got started), page 714: [2] (note the citations) Also here from 1996: [3] The dates are important since the sources show this was "found" by the guy mentioned in the article around 1995. I don't think it's fake, but I do think it's been blown out of proportion. Not sure what to recommend on deletion grounds. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge - Looks real to me. Its certainly a Fringe topic within economics, and probably shouldn't be covered in any depth in an article like Fractional reserve banking, but we do have an article about Fisher's proposals, such as Full-reserve banking and Chicago plan. This article could redirect to Fisher, or better, to Chicago plan. To me it seems that most of the citations to this paper, and there are a lot, couches the paper in a discussion of Fisher's ideas and isn't really about the paper. I don't think the paper passes NBOOK, and we don't usually have articles about every academic manuscript that has a dozen or two citations. I could maybe be convinced that the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, I think better would be some energy put into those other articles as merge destinations. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chicago plan where it is already briefly mentioned as a followup proposal. If the editors of the Journal of Law and Economics did not think it is a hoax, who am I to argue. Irving Fisher and the 100 Percent Reserve Proposal ("In the fall of 1938, joined by Paul Douglas, Frank Graham, Earl Hamilton, Willford King, and Charles Whittlesey, he [Fisher] drafted a five- page statement, 'A Program for Monetary Reform.' During the winter it was widely circulated, and in March 1939 it was sent to the president ..."). Including the full text of the memo is a copyright violation, however, isn't it? I flagged it but didn't blank it out of indecision. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax - The Chicago Plan & New Deal Banking Reform , Allen, William R. "Irving Fisher and the 100 percent reserve proposal." The Journal of Law and Economics 36.2 (1993): 703-717.. Seems to be widely referred to. Merge is possible to Chicago plan - but it would require a re-titling there, and extensive work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge perhaps to [Chicago plan]]. It does not look like a hoax to me, but like an academic paper that never saw the light of day. I note that four of the 6 authors are notable enough to have articles. However, we cannot keep an article on every pamphlet that may have been written. It may become significant in the history of its topic, but I doubt it merits a free-standing WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with [Chicago plan] - agree with Peterkingiron's reasoning. Reissgo (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chicago plan (where it merits a section) with which it shares almost everything. This is an easy one. And whether the subject itself, i.e. the proposal, is with or without any real merit, or whether it's a hoax or not, is irrelevant. This is a notable subject but the material is already up there in the Chicago proposal article. -The Gnome (talk) 05:32, 28 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Medicines Society

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

No indy sources; original website was just a ISP hosted website; Charity shut in 2006; no sign it was ever notable KylieTastic (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: they did have a full website in the beginning www.the-nms.org.uk but I guess moved to www.thenms.demon.co.uk later to save money KylieTastic (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment simply typing "Natural Medicines Society" brings up a number of mentions, including listings in 1990s book directories of pharmaceutical organisations. I'm not saying it's notable, as most of the sources only mentioned the organisation in passing, but there's sources there to sift through. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same thing, I went looking for sources but could not find anything more than a minimal mention, the most notable thing I found was a mention in notes for a house of lord committee that showed two members had link to the Society as president and patron this which I've added to the article. KylieTastic (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, and may not exist now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 3 March 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) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of conservatism in the United States

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Just a list of books, mostly non notable and unrefenced/original research. The list inclusion has all the hallmarks of an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been the second-most active editor on that page, and I think that material is appropriate, and reasonably well selected. The list is selected based on the evaluations and recommendations for further reading made by multiple scholars, both liberal and conservative. Google scholar lists over 22,000 scholarly books and articles published since 2014 on the topic of American conservatism. see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=american+conservatism&btnG= This article lists only 125 titles, which are grouped so that the particular subcategories (like Biography) have a limited number of useful titles. There are 18 books listed under biography, and they are scholarly studies of Buckley, Schlafly, Nock, Smith, Russell, Burnham, Helms, Taft, Mencken, Voegelin, Reagan, Meyer, Hoover, and Whittaker Chambers. That is what selectivity looks like. My approach was to start with the bibliographies of the major surveys (listed under "Surveys:), check the book reviews and the scholarly journals, and check number of times an an item is cited in Google scholar. For example, Google scholar shows that the Rossiter book is been cited over 400 times by other scholars. So not only is it mentioned, but I went through its recommended readings as well. I also work through "America: History and Life " Which gives abstracts of scholarly articles and books dealing with the United States and Canada . It lists 3086 Different publications under the subject heading of conservatism. So what we have is a highly selected list, based primarily on the scholarly guides, bibliographies in the books on conservatism, and Books recommended in the review section of scholarly journals. The critic who wants the entire article removed claims that the books are "mostly non notable and unrefenced/original research. " Actually, The titles were mostly selected by Allitt, Critchlow, Filler, Frohnen, and Schneider, in the books listed in the "Surveys" section, plus the items highlighted by the authors in the "Historiography" section (they Brinkley, Burns, Cowie and Salvatore, Dochuk, Kazin, Lewis, McGirr, Phillips-Fein, Ponce de Leon, Ribuffo, and Zelizer. These historiographers are in fact mostly liberals who are often sharply critical of conservatism. The editor who recommended deletion is User:Ajf773, who is from New Zealand, and perhaps is unaware of the intellectual ferment over conservatism in the United States in recent decades. In the last couple days he has been indiscriminately listing numerous articles for deletion on a wide range of different topics such as List of Chip 'n' Dale merchandise and List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn--Well, okay, I agree with him on those--but my complaint is that he shows no familiarity with the large major topic of American conservatism. That requires someone who's actually read some of the appropriate books and articles which appears from major publishers and in major journals. Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rjensen: from WP:WikiProject Bibliographies, the article should feature an explicit, discriminate inclusion criteria and the lead should establish the notability of the bibliography by citing at least two sources that demonstrate that relevant books, journals and other references on a specific topic have been discussed as a group., both of which the article lacks. Do you believe that this is remediable based on your methodology for inclusion? Acebulf (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point--I expanded the lead to include your concerns. The 15 articles listed under "Historiography" all discuss the bibliography. Rjensen (talk)
Comment I don't want to make an WP:OSE argument since Wikipedia does host a number of bibliographies like Pershing missile bibliography, Bibliography of Irish rail transport, List of books about the politics of science, et cetera. (I'm not sure they need to be on Wikipedia, either.) The problem I have with the list is it has no specific category for inclusion - an indiscriminate list as per nom - but possibly best brought as a policy discussion or a bulk delete (see Bibliography on American Communism. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral or Close and move discussion~~ ~~I think this should be a policy discussion on bibliographic articles, better held on WP:Village Pump/Policy than on here.~~ Acebulf (talk)00:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we need a policy discussion on bibliographies, just because the nominator is unfamiliar with them? The nominator can either clarify what about this specific bibliography poses a problem for them (the current kitchen sink rationale has a low signal to noise ratio; clearly "unreferenced" is meaningless as stated, given that this is itself a list of references), or do some reading at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies and ask some questions there. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Postdlf: If I understand the policy discussed on the Wikiproject, there should still be evidence of the notability of a particular set of works put into the bibliography from coverage of the references itself as being notable. Does this mean that there should be non-trivial coverage of the bibliography as a subject per-se? I think such lists should at the very least include some sort of indication that the works listed therein are significant to the subject matter. Acebulf (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I expanded the lede to explain the selection criteria--there are books and articles recommended in the books and articles listed under "Surveys" and "Historiography." The latter is 15 articles that each look at what are the most useful titles for specific subtopics. I cite Kim Phillips-Fein who argued in a British journal in January 2018, "an entire field of scholarship has emerged to interrogate the roots, development, and persistence of modern American conservatism." This is a bibliography of that field. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that does good on asserting notability. Well done. Acebulf (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the new changes (see above) reflecting the methodology and notability asserted, I don't see the need to delete the article. Acebulf (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While we have a whole category related to similar topics (yes, OSE), the listing here can be culled down to notable works or works by notable authors. – S. Rich (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have lists of notable works and we have bibliographies that have a different inclusion criteria. I've come to understand the latter to be rather controversial (see the somewhat recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Oakland, California, deleted largely for NOTCATALOGUE/INDISCRIMINATE reasons based on it including non-notable books). I considered starting a bigger policy discussion thereafter, but figured I'd wait to see if those rationales led to more deletion of such lists (after all, there is also an argument that there just aren't enough works about Oakland, which is not an argument that applies here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether or not the article needs changes, I don't think that deletion is the answer, as this is certainly an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article and there aren't serious issues (e.g. defamation). Also, subjectively, it seems like a reasonably well-selected list to me. Orser67 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 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) 19:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Nelson

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

I think it fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Largely talks about her own publications that she manages. It is decently written and has citations hence the AfD route. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a lot of web sourcing and article itself seems to be a CV with a lot of OR. SPA-created. May be vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralDelete borderline promotional; clearly fails the GNG The article has been significantly improved since my original !vote. That said, I'm not sure even a significant improvement is enough to overcome the standards of GNG as much of the sources added are short PR bios in "About" sections, fleeting and incidental mentions that don't offer biographical depth, or non-WP:INDEPENDENT. Nonetheless, I'm not as entirely confident this is as overt as a failure as I was initially and will hold-back on !voting to see the continued input of other editors. Chetsford (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, unlikely that this article is a "vanity" page as alluded to by Agricola44 above, it was created by a new editor as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Lost Poets of Scotland Editathon, 4 1/2hours later up for deletion, it would have been nice if the nominator, Classicwiki, had contacted the contact/trainer of the event, lirazelf, and discussed any concerns before nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coolabahapple and lirazelf, I had no way of knowing that this article was part of the Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Lost Poets of Scotland Editathon, as it is not mentioned in the edit logs notes or in the talk page for the article. So in quickly reviewing the edit log, it just looks like lirazelf moved it from the Draft space. As I noted, the article was decently sourced and since it had been moved from a draft space I chose the AfD route instead of the harsher CSD or PROD. As part of the AfD process, PayTheLibrarians was notified that they can advocate why the article belongs on Wikipedia. I honestly don't like to bite the newbies and I apologize if I did, but there are 4015 total unreviewed pages on Wikipedia as of now. Much less than a year ago, but still a substantial amount. At the end of the day, I still think the article still fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, the notability of this author/poet needs to be better established. If that means going back to the Draft space or getting a significant revision I am all for it. Again sorry if I stepped on any toes, the more people editing and creating for Wikipedia the merrier. I had no clue that this was part of some organized effort. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Classicwiki, no probs, agree difficult to know that it was part of a GLAM event, it would be good if "GLAMeditors" tagged any GLAM article talkpage with a link to the relevant event page. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Classicwiki & Coolabahapple, thanks for spotting the editathon connection - I've just added the editathon tag, better late than never. (I've taken to adding these on GLAM event articles recently, this one slipped through the net.) Any help appreciated! Thanks for the understanding.Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is borderline GNG. I'd like to keep and work on it. Her press has won the Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets and should be mentioned prominently in the article so of course the article will "talk about her own publications that she manages". Her poetry seems to have been published around. This should be kept. I fail to see vanity or promo anywhere. The creator is not a SPA, they are someone who participated in an event to create the article. Elektricity (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Elektricity, actually, Happenstance Press didn't win but it did make the short list of the Michael Marks Publishers' Award (also see here) which is still pretty good. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple I think it was shortlisted twice and won once. http://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poetry/publishers/happenstance-press Elektricity (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, serves me right for not fully reading Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets article, which has one of its poets on the 2013 Poetry Pamphlets shortlist, another winning in 2015, and HappenStance shortlisting the Publishers' Award in 2009 and winning in 2010:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) *and another of its poets on the 2016 Poetry Pamphlets shortlist, see here:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue that the poet does meet WP:GNG although this could be better established - I've added Nelson's inclusion in the "Modern Scottish Women Poets" anthology to contribute to this. Can also confirm that it's not a vanity / SPA, have now added the editathon tag on the talk page to make this more clear. Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now also added additional information about early publications and an award. Lirazelf (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the poet does meet WP:GNG and in particular her work "How (not) To Get Your Poetry Published" seems to be pretty influential in supporting other developing or lesser known poets to get published. She is an award winning poet, works as a critic, runs a (seemingly successful) small press publishing the work of other poets, has performed at the Scottish Poetry Library, the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and the StAnza Festival. She has also been an invited guest at a 2016 University of Edinburgh academic event - the Scottish Women's Poetry Symposium. I agree with talk that some of this detail needs to be added to her article to improve it. Ammienoot (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nelson is well known for her poetry, mentorship of others and for her reviews of the work of others which have appeared in many notable journals. Her review essay (2013) in the Dark Horse poetry journal has been well-received and attracted follow-up articles from other notable writers and poets such as Kei Miller who have applauded her thoughtful treatise on the subject.Stinglehammer (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The descriptions in the article have been improved. There is now a range of sources included and these show that this individual is well regarded in the poetry publishing community in Scotland. I think notability has been established when judged by WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the key things are winning (jointly) the Jerwood Aldeburgh Prize and her press winning the Michael Marks Publishers' Award. These push her into notable for me. I think the section on Poetry in the Age of Hype could be cut though - not clear that it received significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first looked at this article I was doubtful, but the recent work done on the page would seem to show that there are a range of source that would suggest the subject is notable. Dunarc (talk) 19:55, 2 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Budișteanu

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

I believe it is a major mistake for deleting this Wikipedia page. Besides of winning the ISEF award, Ionut got recognition from Times Magazine, Forbes Europe nominating him in 2016 as one of the Top 30 under 30 in Europe in the category of industry, The Financial Times and many other international publications recognized Ionut as a young leader in the IT industry. At age of 24, he founded a Peer to Peer digital currency called WebDollar. He finished Singularity University in Silicon Valley and founded two startups VisionBot and SkyHub. MIT Lincoln Laboratory named an Asteroid with his name 28854 Budisteanu. I am very confident that this young man will achieve many great things abroad and in Romania.

Regarding his research. It is not important to have "scientific publication" to get really successful. Satoshi Nakamoto published a PDF file that changed the entire world for real on the internet and it was never presented on any academic forums, etc. Recently I saw that Ionut started a digital currency project and for instance look at his amazing White Paper where it shows great talent in Computer Science that nobody could deny. http://webdollar.io/public/doc/WebDollar-White-Paper.pdf

Again, I truly believe it was a bad decision from you to delete this wikipedia page because Ionut is a very talented young man with all the chances to change the world in one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.207.38 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a WP:BLP1E for winning the ISEF award, if at all. Not an academic, not a single scientific publication or relevant mention. Mostly romanian local media in sources. Article is written overly positive, maybe a tribute or (self-)promotion for startup. AlpacaWiki (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlpacaWiki (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional piece about a non-notable individual whose rather routine achievements are hyped by several circular reports in the sensationalist press. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call Time (magazine) to be "sensationalist press": http://time100.time.com/2013/11/12/the-16-most-influential-teens-of-2013/slide/ionut-budisteanu/ Razvan Socol (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But one paragraph of coverage as part of a “16 most influential teenagers” section (at least half of whom lack articles here) is not conclusive evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON. Winning ISEF isn't the type of thing that guarantees a Wikipedia article, and everything else is trivia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 3 March 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) 19:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made In The A.M. Tour

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

Just realized, crystal balling, not date even for it to start. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the obvious reasons: Wikidpedia is not a crystal ball. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: this has got to be a hoax, surely? The album of the same name is already three years old, and the band has been in hiatus for a while, with no signs of getting back together. You'd think if a band as big as One Direction were going on their first tour in three years, there might be something in the news about it, but there's nothing. Richard3120 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:09, 25 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HR Aqib Hameed

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

I did nominate this for speedy deletion, but there is an (unsourced) claim of notability. Best Speaker Award, I have no idea what it was for (or what kind of award), and doubt it is enough to establish notability. But it is just enough to avoid a speedy delete request. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable person. The claims are false IMO as no such awards exist. samee ^talk 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from the article:Many audience listen to his speeches through his facebook page and youtube channel. YouTube stats say it all. samee ^talk 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, and it does not matter how many listen or watch, what matters is if RS have.Slatersteven (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to quote "34 subscribers", THAT IS NOT A LOT.Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I 'think' I also meant exactly the same thing. samee ^talk 23:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. --Saqib (talk) 04:48, 24 February 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) 19:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tongil Tours

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

As per the AFD on Lupine Travel this is another non-notable travel company with the article being created largely for promotional purposes, created by a conflict of interest editor who is the subject of the article. There is only one source stated in the article which actually refers specifically to the company in question. Most of the sources include only a brief reference to the company and cover North Korean travel in general, or they are about the individual as a person who founded the company and his experience in North Korea. The service they promote of "language study tours" in North Korea is not unique, there are several other firms offering this- TF92 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Perhaps something could be merged into Tourism in North Korea. There are related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupine Travel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pioneer Tours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable organization due to a lack of independent sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The refs are almost entirely passing mentions, sufficient to prove that the company exists but not enough to provide any further notable information. There's some coverage of the company's founder (the Huffington Post article), but again the company is only mentioned in passing. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note- A Conflict of Interest concerned anonymous IP address has since attempted to edit the article adding more sources about himself [4]. The IP address traces to Australia, which is the location of the company owner in question (without revealing his identity as per wikipedia policy). As this article concerns his only edit, we can assume it is certainly that person. As according to wikipedia policy, I have reverted these edits to prevent the owner of the business from attempting to influence the deletion discussion--Antonian Sapphire (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive comment by business owner

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ridiculous leap of logic aside, just raising the issue that user: Antonian Sapphire has agreed not to edit any North Korea-related articles, yet has just made edits to this despite acknowledged COI @World's Lamest Critic: @Anachronist:

@World's Lamest Critic and Anachronist: Apologies, just fixing failed ping, refer above. 58.179.211.176 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note- This IP address is the owner of the business in question and has a clear WP:COI in this topic. WLC has also been indefinitely blocked from wikipedia for violation of harassment policy- Antonian Sapphire (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 1 March 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) 19:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briony Penn

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unsuccessful election candidate, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage to deem her notable for either endeavour. This is far too dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and even the few reliable ones aren't cutting it: one is from a local community pennysaver covering her only in the context of a speaking engagement in that community (which is not evidence of encyclopedic notability), one glancingly namechecks her existence within coverage about somebody else, and one is simply a piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of her announcement that she was running in the election she didn't win. Otherwise, all we have here for sourcing is her "staff" profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, the self-published websites of minor literary awards that aren't notable enough to confer a WP:AUTHOR pass if the best source that can be provided is their own self-published websites, and one activism award whose source is also self-published by the granter of the award, and fails to actually support the claim at all. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better than this, but this sourcing isn't cutting any mustard and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if she's notable as a politician (and she has retired from politics),^[1] but she does appear to be a notable environmentalist and has written an award-winning book. I updated her article with citations. Her environmentalism and a stunt she pulled while dressed as Lady Godiva was widely noted^[2]^[3] and her book The Real Thing: The Natural History of Ian McTaggart Cowan won a Roderick Haig-Brown Regional Prize.^[4] I'm not sure if it matters, but I also noticed she has several of her works published on Google Scholar.^[5] Lonehexagon (talk)

References

^ https://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2009/05/21/PennMoney/
^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/noted-green-activist-goes-red/article961446/
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=dNwchA9fRN8C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22briony+penn%22+%22Lady+Godiva%22&source=bl&ots=VzDplGF9ve&sig=hsnH-NLgpgWexWEvbkF1UjjLRY0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5vdWn0JzZAhUTS2MKHbvIDsA4ChDoAQgzMAI#v=onepage&q=%22briony%20penn%22%20%22Lady%20Godiva%22&f=false
^ https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/bc-book-prizes-2016-winners-announced
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22briony+penn%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep not notable as a politician, but there appears to be enough coverage as an author to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's passes as an author. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuko Yuya

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

Subject's only notable role seems to be Miwako Sato from the Case Closed series. Nothing in her career comes off as especially notable besides from that. Verifiable sources lacking in JP wiki. MizukaS (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers More roles than listed in the en wiki available on the Japanese https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/湯屋敦子 Additional source which discusses her fame for dubbing a certain actress : https://www.cinematoday.jp/news/N0046503 --Kunzite (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that there are no sources given about her, only two about a character that she voices. Currently, the article is just a resumé, which Wikipedia isn't. — Wylie pedia 10:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. WP:NOTRESUME addresses the practice of using WP as a platform to host a personal resume. This was not the case with this article. This is a curated list of the notable roles by this actor. It was not created by her. This functions as an actor's video/filmography. --Kunzite (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't find much in Japanese sources, but I did come across this, which seems to be an interview with her. It's a significant source, and probably would have been enough to warrant a keep had there been other sources, but I'm not sure if it's enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least two major roles and several other significant roles. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miwako Sato is a major character in the long-running Case Closed series. She is also the Japanese voice of Jill Valentine in the Resident Evil series, so those are two roles that count towards meeting WP:ENT. She is also a major character in Coyote Ragtime Show AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ricardo Cardona López

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

Fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 - also authored by the BLP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:24, 23 February 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) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Kaif Raza Khan Qadri

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

Not a lot here, and what there is does not seem to be sourced to RS. In fact it mainly seems to be in inherited notability away. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without reliable sourcing, this article fails WP:V. Without independent sourcing, this article fails WP:NPOV. Given the material currently in the article, the subject seems to me unlikely to overcome these issues very soon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It’s just a vanity page with no established notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom and Smmurphy.Borderline A7 stuff.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confused comment Wait a minute...is this the same guy as Kaif Raza Khan Qadri? The one whom I also just nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaif Raza Khan Qadri? They appear to have been created by a user who stated that he wants to create an article about his dad. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both & Salt Non notable individual. Created multiple pages with similar content. --Hagennos^Talk 14:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. However the line "my father page on Wikipedia" might not mean that the subject is the father of the editor, but may be an irregular way to refer to first page. I find it very hard to believe that someone born in 1999 would have a child who is editing Wikipedia. I know someone who was born in 1998 who has a child who just turned 5, the later will probably not be editing Wikipedia for at least a few more years. So I think the passage either has a typo, or is an irregular construction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Broadgate Tower. Sandstein 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

201 Bishopsgate

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

Should be merged with Broadgate Tower and changed to a redirect to the above. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, there are attribution issues with just redirecting. Huon (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Huon. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Broadgate Tower per WP:OVERLAP. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Broadgate Tower. I see no reason why we need to delete before redirecting. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Heron Tower. Sandstein 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

110 Bishopsgate

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

Should be merged with Heron Tower and changed to a redirect to the above. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate copy paste article, disruptive editing of several related articles b a single ip user.PRehse (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Heron Tower per WP:OVERLAP. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 (substantially similar to article deleted in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sciences in the Qur'an) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Science and Islam

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

This is an essay rather than an encyclopedic article and is potentially in WP:OR territory. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Probably case of WP:A11. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stock Exchange Tower. Sandstein 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

125 Old Broad Street

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

This should be merged with Stock Exchange Tower and then replaced with a redirect. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect duplicate article, as redirect alone will leave attribution issues. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to Stock Exchange Tower per WP:OVERLAP, this article does have a little extra info (ie. tenant list) than the target and although (presently) unreferenced, would be helpful to readers. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Merge with the "Stock Exchange Tower" article. The "125 Old Broad Street" page was meant to be a redirect, and I was the one who created this redirect. It turns out that some IPs suddenly removed the redirect and made a duplicate article out of it. This occurred four times in the past few years. Jim856796 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect no need to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is appropriate. This was deliberately created because the name is a valid alternative name for the building. No rationale to delete outright has been presented. This didn't really need an AFD discussion at all, it could have simply been redirected without controversy I think. At most some notice for discussion at the Talk page could have been given, but no need for the attention of many AFD editors here. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 28 February 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) 19:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lupine Travel

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

This is a profoundly non-notable company that was mentioned in passing in press coverage about a hoax some bogans once played. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep- Even beyond the story you are citing, Lupine Travel has significant international media coverage to warrant an article, this includes almost every major British media organization. If we are to delete this one, then it has a domino effect as several others should be nominated for deletion too- TF92 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TF92 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF and slippery slope fallacy. See also churnalism. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Wikipedia's Notability Guideline on organizations and companies states: Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).--TF92 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although this article appear to be about one event rather than the agency, it has nothing to indicate the travel agency is any different to others in the same market. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be promotional for the business, and the sources do not talk about the company. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, a few news stories because of its unusual remit, but very few actual customers. Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Perhaps something could be merged into Tourism in North Korea. There are related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongil Tours and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pioneer Tours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small number of trivial mentions, insufficient to pass WP:GNG -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 26 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QASource

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

Non-notable company lacking in any in-depth coverage. Sources are all listings, unreliable, cruft or mill. A search brought up little else. May just be too soon. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do seem to be press releases, and not very smoothly crafted ones. I especially like the one that is supposed to be a profile of company founder Rajeev Rai and leads with a bolded editor's note: "Can we use this quote somewhere on the page?"--GRuban (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How did I miss that...that is just beautiful. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should anyone have any delusions about the independence of sources like testingmagazine, the "profile" linked from 20 Leading Testing Providers 2017 is discussing the company in the first person: "we are", "our CEO". Not remotely independent. Mduvekot (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Device Magic

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, sources do not indicate the significance of Device Magic to meet WP:NSOFT, and the article seems overly promotional.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
article was speedy deleted with rationale "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Highstakes00) in violation of ban or block)" per deletion log; doing non-admin close of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 27 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán Brennan (journalist)

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

This journalist is not notable; not many sources, and the guy just didn't really do much. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about it just found 2 persons with the same name. Go delete it if you must. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough independent sources to pass notability. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:31, 23 February 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) 19:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larson O'Brien

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Founded in 2016 - fails WP:SUSTAINED. Only 21 attorneys -small company. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material or PR (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given that the article's creator was blocked for undisclosed paid editing and Edwardx's rationale above, I would not be opposed to a speedy deletion if such a thing could be made available for such a scenario. After all, these editing practices have no place in the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet CORPDEPTH; the provided sources aren't substantive enough and there are UPE issues. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not meet. WP:Corp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaxing (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 March 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 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Wilkins

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

Performer/actress/songwriter who doesn't hit any of the specific notability guidelines for those professions and who doesn't meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and they don't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional references can be added. Hmlarson (talk) 02:38, 27 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Tucker, Jr.

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

This was a repost seven months after the previous AFD, but it appears to be substantially rewritten, if this Wikia deletion mirror is an accurate snapshot. His civil rights activism makes him sound at least borderline notable, and there were more claims of achievements before the worst of the purple prose was ably cleared out by User:London Hall, but all unsourced, and I can't find any WP:RS online to verify any of it. This also seems to have been the case for the previous version. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are plausible notability claims here that could get him an article if he could actually be shown to clear WP:GNG for them — but there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an article just because his name is present in one book that isn't about him in any non-trivial way. This is even less sourcing than the first version contained, and the first version still wasn't sourced well enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO due to lack of evidence to prove clearance of those criteria. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did some clean up to the article prior to nomination and was also considering nominating it for deletion based on lack of references. London Hall (talk) 15:13, 24 February 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe, Kansas

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

This is an example of a recent series of articles which appear to have been created by correlating a dump of "locale" names from GNIS with a database of post office names from the Kansas Historical Society. Now, GNIS states that "locale" as specifically excluding a "populated place", and indeed, the location they give is that of the intersection of two section line roads, with no structure at all in the immediate vicinity. A little ways south there is a "Monroe Cemetery" (GNIS says so, and the aerial photo agrees), but a cemetery is not as a rule a place where people live, and a post office is not a dwelling, and often isn't a building at all. The upshot is that the synthesis of these two sources, neither of which says that there was a town or even a building here, isn't good enough to claim a "settlement" I've not come up with any other evidence for such a place, although the genuine existence of a township in a different county does impede such a search a bit. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we typically have always kept articles about once-populated places such as this. Kackley, Kansas, Rice, Kansas, and Yuma, Kansas all come to mind as examples. Notability cannot be lost, and since these once-populated places were by definition cities and towns, they pass WP:GEOLAND: "Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that Kackley, Rice, and Yuma actually were towns. Find me evidence that Monroe ever was a town; the cited works do not say that, and GNIS tend to say it was not a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas State Historical Society has records that a local newspaper wrote a story in 1966 about the organization of the Monroe School District #2 back in 1873. The bibliography mentions: "Monroe School District No. 2 Was Organized in Lincoln County in 1873." Lincoln Sentinel-Republican. Apr. 14, 1966. [1 p.]. (Reel: L1507). It stands to reason that we're looking for offline sources here, but that is a good reference that at one time it was populated since it would have maintained a school district.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More detail History of Monroe School, Organized in 1873 confirms that the area was populated and gives names of prominent citizens.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug through all those, but I keep coming up with the same issue: none of this adds up to a "settlement". They add up to a dot/area on a map that people are "from", but as best I can determine the reality is that the postal system in those days needed a "town" on the envelope, so names were given to all these post offices. I'm going to put in a query with the KHS, but assuming these get kept, they need to be described better than the misleading "settlement". Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what then would be your definition of a "settlement" ? In any event, that would be an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Even by your description above, that seems to me to pass the requirements in WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Am I missing something in your interpretation?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming around to the idea of withdrawing them, but I would like to get a better picture of what these places actually are. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the excellent research above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Paulmcdonald. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:37, 3 March 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) 19:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Legends of Mithila

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

Book promotion, fails N ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11 - this seems to be an obvious case. Adding template. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe this article subject will pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines (and hence this AFD), it isn't a blatant advertising and is not eligible for speedy deletion under G11. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did add an advert template as well if it turned out to not be as blantant as I thought it was. Totally OK, thanks for pointing that out. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by yet another sock/meat/fan of Birbal Jha, of whom there have been dozens over the years. The book features a chapter about him and that is probably why it was created. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Long-term Spam^Spam.Misses GNG/NBOOKS by a mile.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Godric above. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 2 March 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 all except Frank D. Stafford. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. Terry Cady

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

consensus exists that an article that's only claim to significance is being a mayor of North Adams, Massachusetts is not notable enough. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest H. Rosasco Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Stafford. Being a mayor of North Adams could be enough for notability if the person could be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear GNG. But all of these articles either state that the subject existed as a mayor the end, or add only personal life details that are irrelevant to establishing notability — not one of them addresses or sources anything about what they actually did in their role as mayor. And none are actually evincing a GNG pass, either: some are completely unsourced, some are single-sourced to glancing namechecks of the person's existence in much broader local history books, and while some cite more sources than that none of those sources are strong ones. James M. Lilly, for example, cites three primary source civil genealogy records (his draft card, his Social Security Death Index entry and a census form) that cannot support notability at all, his obituary, and his wife's obituary. Which means his obituary is the only source that even begins to support his notability, because it's the only one that actually represents coverage about him, but it's not a source that can carry GNG all by itself as an article's only relevant source. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can actually do much better at actually sourcing some or all of these over WP:NPOL #2 than any of them is showing right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Someone put a deal of work into all of these, but it'd have been better if the person had created these articles with "Do they meet the GNG?" in mind rather than "Whee, let's make an article for every mayor of North Adams, no matter how obscure!" The arguments in favor of deletion are entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ would have to pass WP:GNG; being a mayor does not automatically convey notability, and no other notability is shown here. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Stafford as per Bearcat. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All except Frank D. Stafford. According to the article he was a member of the Vermont House of Representatives which would pass WP:NPOL. He only served in that position for a year or two though and since the sources are offline, I can't verify it. I'm wondering if Frank Stafford the mayor is the same person as Frank Stafford the representative since they served in two different state, although I guess it is possible.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible — North Adams is literally only a few miles away from the VT-MA border and the town Stafford is claimed to be from is literally only a few miles further north of it, so it doesn't strain credulity as much as it would if the states in question were further apart — but as it stands the claim that he served in the Vermont House of Representatives is actually entirely unsourced, and I'm bothered by the lack of any information about what district he actually represented in the Vermont House, or who his predecessors and successors were. If a source can be located to confirm that claim, I'll switch to a keep on him — but if it can't, we'll need to delete and just permit recreation in the future if and when somebody can source him better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] only has him as a mayor, and has a list of representatives from Vermont in 1888 on another part of the website. Someone will have to go to offline sources to confirm. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're good. After enough fiddling with my search terms, I was finally able to find the Vermont Legislative Directory for the years he served — and its biography of him matches all of the biographical details that were already present here from the Massachusetts-based sources. So I've refactored my prior comment to keep him, but I'm still a delete on everybody else and we do still need more sourcing for Stafford overall. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stafford State Representatives pass WP:NPOL. I express concern about the use of WP:BUNDLE for articles that are not similarly situated. At the time his page was nominated for deletion, it contained a reference to his service in the Vermont Legislature, and was not merely a mayor of North Adams. --Enos733 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budsies

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

Horribly spammy article written by an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of Terms of Use. All sources are churnalism - press releases misrepresented as independent coverage. Almost certainly paid for as part of the support for a crowdfunding campaign. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Edwardx (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Corp and is trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete corporate spam, and a breach of our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. No independent coverage. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Corp. Xaxing (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 02:01, 2 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zemestan-Yurt coal mine disaster

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Google turns up newsflash reports on the day but nothing since, so this does not appear to have had any lasting impact beyond that day's news. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fawiki shows quite a bit of coverage in Persian - lasting beyond the initial news cycle. International coverage on the week of the event - 3-10 May - very wide coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mining disasters seem to generally be notable, and as Icewhiz points out there are additional refs in Farsi. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 3 March 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) Kagundu Talk To Me 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahid Miski

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

WP:BLP1E - and actually not even an event since he's only wanted. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom misrepresent that he is just wanted, as he is jailed in Somalia. He is also known for much more than one event - being covered in relation to his activites in Somalia, recruiting for ISIS, the Garland shooting, and the San Bernadino shooting. As a public recruiter this is a high profile individual. Meets SIGCOV - lots of coverage throughput 2015 and continuing through the end of 2017. Some book coverage and many journal articles covering this individual.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Icewhiz said. Also, I have added some blue chip sources (New York Times; Minneapolis Star Tribune]] on this dastard's "career".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeney Bhi Do Yaaron (2017 TV Series)

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

This does not appear to be a notable web series, as I am unable to find any significant coverage for this. It also doesn't help that the series has relatively few views on YouTube. While it appears that some notable people and a notable company worked on the show, notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Youtube series with 3500 views for a link I checked, the only refs are to Youtube and IMDb, and Google search mainly shows pages with the {{Arin Paul}} infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's likely some merge is necessary, and that can continue to be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari language

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

Too confusing to have this article and Pahari languages. Ambiguity around the term Pahari should be discussed at the main article. Batternut (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pahari languages - this is relevant information but should be incorporated into the main article. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the point of the nominator. Could they care to elaborate? Though we should probably make sure we're on the same page first? The proposed target – Pahari languages as it is currently titled though it ought to be renamed to Northern Indo-Aryan languages – is about a hypothetical subgroup of the Indo-Aryan languages. The page currently nominated for deletion on the other hand is a disambiguation page (or a WP:BCA if you prefer). Why should a disambiguation page be merged into one of the articles that it disambiguates? There are too many entries to fit into a hatnote and there isn't a primary topic anyway. Though the hypothetical group is probably the primary topic for "Pahari languages" (plural), "Pahari language" (singular) most commonly refers to either the Pahari language of Pakistan (not a member of the group), or to one or another of the Western Pahari languages. – Uanfala (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PLURALPT the plural should redirect to its singular, or (rarely) the singular should redirect to the plural. As Uanfala has just had Pahari languages moved to Northern Indo-Aryan languages (good move!), that issue is largely dealt with. But we still have a bit of a mess: Pahari language and Pahari languages should produce the same page. Pahari languages should either redirect to Pahari language, or they both redirect to the disambiguation page at Pahari. Thus this page should be merged into Pahari#languages, which would then be structured as the Indian dba. Batternut (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the plural and the singular have different meanings here (see second paragraph of WP:PLURALPT) – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the distinction in usage is sufficiently significant or reliable - both singular and plural need disambiguating. Batternut (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plural is obviously never used to refer to any of the individual languages, and the only overlap between the two is in the singular's use in phrases like "a Pahari language". – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have raised a discussion upon the target of Pahari languages at RfD. Batternut (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a disambiguation page, on which Pahari languages is only one of the entries. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: nope, it's not a disambiguation page; that's Pahri language, I believe. (That's part of the problem here; there's a lot of similar pages.) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd1a4i: Ugh. This is a mess. Pahri language should not be a DAB page – it contains one redirect, and one WP:SEEALSO. It fails WP:TWODABS by some margin, and as such is ripe for deletion.

It looks to me as if there ought to be a single DAB page somewhere, which all these ambiguous links funnel into. I have no strong feelings as to whether it should be Pahri language or Pahari language or some other name. The only thing that matters is, that our readers can find what they want. Narky Blert (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pahri language PRehse (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of cross-link also needs to be made to the DAB page Pahari at the end of this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari already links here. I'm not sure I see the point of having a link in the opposite direction. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say what type of link. My basic point is, that at the moment Pahari language, Pahari languages and Pahri language are a hopelessly unnavigable jumble. Sort those pages down to one DAB page with the usual branches, and a link to Pahari (disambiguation) would be an everyday WP:PTM and a WP:SEEALSO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense (though I still wouldn't add such a link myself, I wouldn't object if others do). As for the "unnavigable jumble", Pahari languages is now a redirect to its only possible topic (there still is a hatnote for those who arrive there by error), and Pahri language already links back here (though it does so only as a matter of courtesy to its long history as a misspelling redirect to Pahari language; ideally, it ought to redirect to Newari). – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above (in case it hasn't become patently clear). – Uanfala (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Pahari dab, which points here. WP:DOUBLEDAB (double disambiguation) is rare, and I see no justification for it here. Most mentions of and searches for the language(s) are just "Pahari", so Pahari should work the same as Chinese or Creole, unless it can be successfully turned into a WP:BCA. However, as Northern Indo-Aryan languages covers most of these languages, the only scope for a BCA would be to compare distantly (eg Pothwari) and unrelated languages (eg Newar), typically labelled Pahari (hill-people language) as an exonym. Batternut (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Double disambiguation is pretty common for languages, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 45#Languages and incomplete disambiguation. If this page were merged into Pahari as it is, the result will be absolutely confusing for readers. And I don't see how it can be shoehorned into the format of a disambiguation page without compromising the information content. And btw, I don't see how this is relevant, but for the "Pothwari" and Newari varities listed here, "Pahari" is not an exonym. – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting discussion, though the only contributor that reckoned Double disambiguation is pretty common for languages was actually you yourself!

Interesting also for the view there that the test is whether a language is referred to as simply "X" rather than "X language". If they are known as simply "X", they belong on the X disambiguation page. In this case, "Pahari" (in a language context) is more common than "Pahari language". Batternut (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to be faithful to the view of the editors you refer to, it's not a question of which is more common, but whether phrases like "X language" are used at all. There was disagreement about the extent to which separate dab pages were well established, but there was no disagreement about them being common in the case of languages. – Uanfala (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder what folks here would think about turning Pahari language into a WP:Set Index Article, discussed at Talk:Pahari language#Disambiguation page or Set Index? @Narky Blert, Nerd1a4i, and PRehse: pinging those not known aware of the suggestion. Batternut (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on that Talk Page, to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKing this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 1 March 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue1 destinations

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

This article, unreferenced for a decade, appears to be original research. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources. Rhadow (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm getting sick and tired of these nominations by the same user. Consensus is these articles are notable. AFD is not cleanup. Enough, or we'll have to take this to WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There are hundreds of these articles, all supported by the Aviation WikiProject. While I understand that that in itself is not a reason for keeping this particular article, it does indicate that there's a larger problem that will not be solved by this capricious and isolated nomination. I suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD and get with appropriate stakeholders to try to convince them that none of these "destination" articles ought to be kept. Until there's a broad discussion leading to some kind of consensus, this individual nomination is nothing more than disruption. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This editor has been nominating bunches of these destination articles for deletion. One of them evidently did get deleted but that decision was overturned at deletion review to keep. It's worth reading that discussion and the AfD discussion it was based on to see the extent of the disruption here. Nom ought to withdraw this and all other similar deletion discussions and try to gain consensus. This is a waste of everyone's time. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We just concluded in a DRV that Airline destinations, as a group, are notable. That's fine. Of the 455 articles are a small subset that fail WP:V. This nomination is neither isolated nor capricious, to wit: Flybe franchise and codeshare destinations, Holidays Czech Airlines destinations, and Skyservice destinations.
Keep per the outcome at the DRV discussion. Blue1 is an airline with regular services, and all you have to do is source the article. Deletion is not an option.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I even partially sourced the article very quickly. I agree with Smartyllama - Rhadow did bring a couple good deletions in these categories in my opinion (such as the list of codeshares, or defunct charter airlines that would be impossible to source properly) but on the whole this is a giant waste of time. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:34, 23 February 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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 11:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Object: A Memoir

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

This is not a notable book (fails WP:NBOOK). Article is just an advertisement. damiens.rf 10:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator--please see below. If an admin or clerk could please close. Thanks very much. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have enough reviews published in reliable sources to meet WP:NBOOK criterion 1. Here are three: [6] [7] [8] —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- this book was reviewed by the Guardian and the New York Times and therefore meets WP:NBOOKS. Why was this even nominated? Cait.123 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per previous commenters. Also note reviews by NPR, and in Vogue and Rolling Stone. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although speedy keep by nominator withdrawing would be better. Damiens.rf, even if you had not conducted the research portion of WP:BEFORE, the entry itself already contains references to meet the first criterion in the WP:NBOOK guideline you've cited. Kindly withdraw so as not to waste your fellow editors' time? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I failled to correctly read WP:NBOOKS. I didn't realize reviews would make for notability. The bar is lower than what I expected. Sorry. I withdraw the nomination. --damiens.rf 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, appreciate your following up! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficiently referenced from secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 24 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tae Yun Kim

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

False claims of being a "Dr." or becoming the "first female to reach the level of Grandmaster in TaeKwonDo". Except for this 1991 misguided NYT Sports and Leisure mention, references are mostly trivial, self-published or press releases. Other claims to notability include authoring a series of unknown books and receiving a "Silver Stevie Award". No evidence of martial arts skills to be found, and while searching about her online found some sites describing her as a fraud [9] London Hall (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 05:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there is this New York Times article about her. this sources states she is a grandmaster inducted into the taekwondo hall of fame. It does not appear she is grandmaster accredited in the USA, however this sources says she was the first female Black Belt in Korea, then the first female Master, then the first female Grandmaster in the martial arts. And this article shows that she has coached various teams. However the title of grandmaster can be awarded ceremonially. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) The New York Times article is a 1991 Sports and Leisures piece that cannot be considered journalistic or reliable; includes statements such as: "Then the class double-blocked and kicked at other obstacles such as anger and jealousy."

2) ""source"" stating that she is a grandmaster inducted in the hall of fame does not meet Wikipedia's requirement for a reliable source.

3) The 3rd source also cannot be considered a reliable piece of journalism with inclusions such as : "Two years later, in the morning mist, she caught sight of her uncles training in the martial art of TaeKwonDo. She was fascinated and knew that this is what she wanted to do. She begged her uncles to teach her but they laughed at her."

4) Coaching trivial TaeKwonDo teams does not make a person notable.

There isn't any evidence of her ever competing, or even practising martial arts. The little coverage this has received comes across as paid adverts and press releases. London Hall (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see nothing to show she's a notable martial artist. Rank doesn't show notability, especially when you create your own style, nor do martial arts halls of fame. Coaching a team at the "Pre World Games" (whatever those are) is not notable. As far as meeting WP:GNG goes, I'm not seeing significant independent coverage from reliable sources. She appears to be good at self-promotion, but that doesn't make her notable (or even unusual).Sandals1 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable woman leader with numerous honors. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of which references? London Hall (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tag for better sources and Sigh. She obviously meets WP:Notability, we just need to source it, not delete it. Author, philanthropist, started her own system of martial arts..... there were allegations that she was a cult leader and her and her group were investigated by the TV show inside edition (Matt Maher, Tae Yun Kim (May 1998). Inside Edition (Television). United States of America: King World Television.) And just in case that isn't enough, she's the founder and CEO of a (seemingly) major Silicon Valley Tech company [[10]] Here's an article on her winning an award for her work [[11]] Sethie (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references you're including is a company website and press release. How do these meet WP:GNG? London Hall (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming she owns the company Bussiness Wire (3rd Reference) and Inside Edition (1st reference)? Hmmm she's more notable then I thought. Sethie (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overtly promotional piece written to make more out of what is really there. With respect to martial arts opening one school and calling it an art and yourself a grandmaster is a level of hubris not notability. No indication that any one else besides primary sources are calling her company notable and CEO of a non-notable company does not make one notable. Same can be said for fraud investigations.PRehse (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Tae Yun Kim has been training in the martial arts for her entire life. She has been featured on the cover of many Taekwondo Times magazine issues and is a regular columnist and is featured in news articles in the magazine. [[12]]. She was inducted into the Taekwondo Hall of Fame in 2009 [[13]] which includes all the notable martial artists involved in Taekwondo from around the world. SarahSmile516 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSmile516 is a SPA account providing a reference of Kim's "Heart to Heart" column in a magazine and a reference that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. As noted by Sandals1, Kim seems efficient at promoting herself, but there isn't anything substantial to verify she has contributed in any significant way to any sport or business. London Hall (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question [[14]] is chock-full of notable figures in the Tae Kwon Do world, just search wiki for all the names in the ceremony picture - they're all there. Just because it doesn't look pretty doesn't make it unreliable.Lmarotz (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking photos with notable figures does not make one notable. London Hall (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not your run of the mill promo, as the creator was not a WP:SPA, but then this dates few years back when promotion was as not sophisticated (through the use of throw-away SPAs). I can't deny the possibility that someone found the claims in the cited sources notable, but I have to lean delete. Claims of first women grandmaster are not reliably sourced, and are not mentioned in the reliable NYT publication, which would likely mention such a nice claim. The only thing we have going for her is that she "in 1978, organized the first women's division in international TaeKwonDo competition at the Pre-World Games in Seoul, South Korea." and did some coaching. That does not seem to be sufficient. Pre-World Games don't seem to be a notable event and are not mentioned in our Taekwondo#Competitions. Coachs of Olympic athletes and others who help with major events may be notable, but she doesn't seem to have been involved in anything at that level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the NYT article, the sources supporting this promotional article seem trivial or unreliable. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a lot of the discussion has focused around the Martial Arts, which is fine. But I disagree that the proof is "not sufficient", especially if you look into Tae Kwon Do Times' coverage of her. The first time they covered her was May 1991[[15]], then Jan '93[[16]], Nov '94[[17]] (mentions her Grandmaster title), Jul '99[[18]], March 2009 [[19]], and again in Jan '15[[20]]. So if that publication uses someone for their cover 6 times in a 19 year period (or 3 times in a 4 year span), that person would be pretty notable for the sport. Can't knock a person whose fame came before Wikipedia... Lmarotz (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first AfD, so you might want to review things like the notability guidelines for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) and WP:N where it says that repeated publications from the same organization "are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", which means repeated mentions in the same magazine can be considered one source--and that's if Tae Kwon Do Times is a reliable and independent source as well as the coverage being significant. Papaursa (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, was just doing more research and came across the covers for those magazines. Out of curiosity, how would you determine if Tae Kwon Do Times is reliable enough? Seems like the publication has been going since 1980, although the articles within the publication don't seem to be freely accessible online - or are just very hard to find. Lmarotz (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's start with the claims of accomplishments. There's a long established WP custom on martial arts articles to ignore rank and halls of fame as indicators since anyone can start their own art and claim to be a grandmaster. A number of articles on people who fit this description have had their articles deleted here. I've seen people with 1 year of martial arts experience create their own style and suddenly claim to be a 10th dan grandmaster. There's no evidence any criteria of WP:MANOTE is met and nothing to show that the "Pre World Games" are notable or, for that matter, that whatever World Games this was a warm-up for is notable. It appears her martial art has exactly one school, hardly notable. Honorary degrees do not confer notability. Her award as "a Woman of the Year honoree by the California Legislative Women's Caucus" should be considered a local award as one women is chosen annually from each of California's 80 legislative districts and doesn't appear to be a major award, certainly nothing conferring automatic notability. Winning two Stevie awards is not indicative of notability when you consider that each application costs over $500 plus paying for a banquet to receive an award worth $200--that's even worse than most of the martial arts halls of fame. I'm not sure her books are not essentially self-published, and I see no criteria under WP:NAUTHOR that she meets. Founding a non-notable company also doesn't make her notable. That just leaves me with a lot of self-promotion and a lack of sources that meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:27, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Kovacs

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

Searched online and through the article's references but could not find anything that would meet any of Wikipedia's notability requirements. London Hall (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did a similar search and didn't find anything written on him from anything resembling a secondary source. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:01, 24 February 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) 19:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin (agency)

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

Highly promotional articles. No coverage. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on a PR agency that serves to do exactly that. Surprise! MER-C 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably G11. Obvious spam. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 01:59, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noor E Hidayat

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial book. London Hall (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Muhammed Hasan Imam, by the same editor. Promotional non-notable spam. Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 28 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hai Arifi

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Störm (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 03:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes claims which seems to be puffery without any sources like " being a decedent of Muhammad". Fails WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG. Sources listed cannot be considered as WP:RS --Hagennos^Talk 03:59, 25 February 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) 19:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Carat

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

Run of the mill org. Fails WP:ORGIND with routine press coverage. scope_creep (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - promotional, WP:BEFORE turns up mainly PR work, which this seems also to be. Melcous (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article; promotional references. London Hall (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. MER-C 14:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably G11. Obvious spam. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SUSTAINED. Edwardx (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:ORGIND is exactly right. Especially noting that forbes.com/sites is essentially a bloghost. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 26 February 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) 19:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaul Haque (academic)

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

Not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Keep did not notice the "+ academic" element. Concur with notable results per WP:PROF.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet searches in English will always understate results for people from non-Anglophone country, and in this case there is massive duplication of hits with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (very often spelled Ziaul Haque), Syed Mohammad Ziaul Haque and others. Do I have to point out that "anybody + academic" is a really really stupid search query on which to base any conclusion? Perhaps I do. The number of references to his works in this 2016 book published by Springer suggest he is a considerable authority in his field. If he were American, writing on American topics, we would not be having this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For academics, WP:GNG is usually beside the point; the relevant guideline is WP:PROF. Since he worked in the humanities (as opposed to, say, mathematics) the most pertinent criterion is likely to be the influence of his books. I found three scholarly reviews of Landlord and Peasant in Early Islam without trouble [21][22][23], which leads me to suspect that he might pass WP:PROF. I second the concern about Anglophone bias in search results. The article needs editing for tone, but that's not a matter for AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Also, editing Islamic Studies [24][25] counts in his favor by WP:PROF#C8. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per XOR&X39;easter's research. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and XOR'easter. Mar4d (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I added the reviews found by XOR'easter and a few more besides. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As revised, it's clear that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 27 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jinu Ben

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

The article is not genuine, only one refernce cited and the filmography are not genuine REDTIGER 14:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Thank you ATK55 talk 08:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where is Jinu Ben in the films mentioned here? Makhamakhi (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Currently, there is no RS evidence for filmography other than the two shorts. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:46, 3 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Kuruvilla

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

I can see no evidence of notability here. The refs tell us that he exists and he is a pastor. Where is the notability suposed to lie? Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 06:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, his church in Kottayam alone has 25,000 members, and the ministry has 40,000 members across India and they do have branches around the world. In terms of attendance the church would be in the top 10 in the whole of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuttapanthangapam (talk • contribs) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails Wikipedia's definition of notability. Of the reliable sources, just a passing mention in The Telegraph while no content from The Hindu has been mentioned in the article (due to the negative coverage I presume). MT Train^Discuss 08:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually The Hindu mentions a completely different person, making the source totally irrelevant. MT Train^Discuss 09:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 08:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot quickly find notable articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a couple more references. In India unlike USA,Christianity is a minority religion and is often persecuted by the authorities, especially new generation Pentecostal churches are persecuted on false account of conversions and amassing wealth. The cases files against him, all were proved false in court. —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You have still not addressed as to what Abraham Kuruvilla, the person mentioned in The Hindu, has to do with the subject in this article. Meanwhile, Outlook and Telegraph India, the only other RS among the sources, have only passing mentions about him. MT Train^Discuss 14:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, that was a clerical error on part of the Hindu group, but it refers to Pastor Mathew. Kuttapanthangapam 9:57, 20 February 2018 (IST)

Added another reference. Kuttapanthangapam 11:56, 24 February 2018 (IST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: needs further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources show notability as per WP:ANYBIO and the only WP:RS are for a criminal activity, but any absennse of further coverage shows this to be WP:BLP1E and also does not pass notability as a criminal as defined in WP:PERPETRATOR. --Hagennos^Talk 14:25, 27 February 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) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bond House

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

Does not meet GNG. Promotional article about a business. The building is located within an Historic District, but notability is not inherited. Created by SPA. Lack of independent in-depth coverage. MB 16:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it could be tagged to be developed further. It is listed on the National Register. There are many many articles on B&Bs or other individual contributing buildings within historic districts. I don't begrudge the B&B owner, say if they are behind the article having been created; it is sort of part of historic preservation IMHO. It seems entirely factual as an article and is indeed longer and better sourced than many many NRHP articles in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean is is listed on the National Register? It is merely within a listed Historic District. It is not individually listed. It still has to meet GNG. There is no independent coverage; none of the refs in the article pertain to anything establishing notability. MB 03:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely listed/placed/included/whatever in the National Register. Its owners, like owners of other contributing buildings in other historic districts, are absolutely entitled to post the fairly common NRHP marker sign upon it, as is often done. About GNG, well there is room for improvement in the article; I don't see coverage yet there about why it was included in the historic district, etc. It is appropriate to tag the article and call for improvement. As with other contributing buildings we have reason to believe/expect that more extensive coverage exists about it--we know this from experience with many other historic districts--and that is reason to Keep.--Doncram (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep should definitely be expanded, but it is a known historical building in an NRHP historic district. More references than most NRHP articles. The B&B part is mostly irrelevvant, though I'm sure the owner acted like a bull in a china should, as is the usual case. I'll get a better photo within the month. It is also on the Philadelphia Historic Register. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of references is not relevant. There are no references to sources that provide in-depth coverage required for GNG. There is no WP policy automatically conferring notability based upon a building being "a known historic building". MB 05:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, there is no way this should be outright deleted as proposed (so this AFD should not have even been started), as a merge/redirect to the Old City Historic District article is obviously superior to outright deletion. However, the district article is long enough as it is and I believe it is better kept as a separate article (and I stated my !vote that way above). --Doncram (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is confirmed as a historic building that is part of a NRHP historic district and such buildings are usually kept Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no policy based reason given and no sources provided to reach GNG. MB 15:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT. It's a bit awkward since it's currently a business, meaning there are a ton of sources which refer to it in a business context, but would be notable if it was not, and while the business owners founded the article the article is written in a non-promotional manner as someone quickly removed the copyrighted content. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT specifically says buildings "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Where is the coverage? MB 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building is owned by the National Parks Service (NPS), is part of Independence National Historical Park, and is on the National Register of Historic Places. NPS did not create this article, nor is the article written to promote a business, so it is satisfactory in meeting GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha129 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the building is owned by NPS and such statement is not made in its article. Not sure if it is part of INHP or not, isn't it across the street from it, though associated? Not that these points matter. I !voted "Keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that from the contribution history of Martha129 they would seem to have a COI. MB 03:09, 1 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Trade Hub of Azerbaijan

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

An Azeri government web site with no particular notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title seems to pass the requirements of WP:GNG. See sources such as [26], [27], [28] and probably some others. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more comments are needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically the Azerbaijani version of USA.gov, gov.uk or Europa (Web portal). Likely relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this form. Possibly notable, but certainly promotional. "Moreover, this system offers secure and convenient digital services which ensure credibility and trust online"! Sandstein 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BaDoinkVR

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

Doing this on behalf of ticket:2018013110005508. They give the rationale: "The article is appears to be written by employee (SPA using a code name 'labia') and hyperlinks with an "external link" to the adult website. The 'adult' company is one of millions. Many attend conventions and many receive "pornography awards." Wikipedia does not have an 'adult filter' that would prevent access to children. Bing, Yahoo, and Google have SafeSearch to screen children, however, this is circumvented when a child goes to Wikipedia and gains access to adult content. Children routinely use Wikipedia to do essays or homework. That is of concern to parents who are motivate to donate and support Wikipedia financially, because they believe they are donating to educate our children."

Yes the OTRS customer did allow me to link to the ticket and publish the rationale :) !dave 22:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep as the subject appears to satisfy WP:CORP and the main deletion rationale goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. The alleged COI issues are surmountable. Should Wikipedia purge notable but not famous porn articles because children also use the site? • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ - (Redacted) –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Could you please revisit what you wrote, in light that the requester will read this discussion. I am sure that they not be very pleased to read your comment at all. I understand how you may have seen this, thought 'WTF?' and then made this comment in haste. Please reconsider -- The Golden Rule. Thanks. !dave 14:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I'd forgot all about this so have redacted all, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Redacted above per the ping below - Sources look fine and there's plenty more online, Not sure about the whole NOTCENSORED thing however this still meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davey2010:, which sources in particular look fine? None that I have seen could be described as such, have you seen some online? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News: [29] (Promo piece tho), [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

Books: [38][39],

All of which IMHO establishes notability and certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I asked in case I'd missed something. I don't agree GNG has been met - none of those references pass the criteria for establishing notability. The books are mere mentions-in-passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the notability bar, and Wikipedia is not censored. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is blogs, WP:SPIP, passing mentions and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Just typical tech startup promo 'cruft. Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it a collection of articles on nn companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Relative to the nomination for deletion, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Furthermore, parents can purchase parental control software that is available from many vendors to limit children's access to internet content. See the article "The Best Parental Control Software of 2018" from PC Magazine for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the reasoning provided for the nomination - WP:NOTCENSORED - but K.e.coffman above has identified an issue with sourcing. None of the references provided meet the criteria for establishing notability and all rely on extensive quotes/interviews from the company and their officers. Article Content is not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "sources" are the same kind obtained when a PR firm is hired. (The articles promote the business, sell the products, and quote the business owner on how wonderful the newest innovation is.) The page also hyperlinks to an adult-subscription site (for profit). Seems the intent of this Wikipedia page is to sell and promote various products. LuvToEdit (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)— LuvToEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've unstruck the !vote; SPAs are allowed to vote and the comment is already marked as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not reviewed the sources to check to see if it passes notability, but it clearly passes WP:NOTCENSORED which is what I think this AfD is about. I'd vote soft keep. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep got pinged back into this so I reviewed the sources; this has substantial third-party magazine articles written about the company which pass WP:GNG. They are promotional in a sense, but they're also independent from the source and appear to be more than just PR. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the nomination may have been flawed, but the subject clearly does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and the content is promo 'cruft. Might as well delete now, instead of kicking the can down the road, so to speak. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The requester has added a clarification that We would like to clarify that we don't seek to censor adult content. Even with "adult" content, the sources typically add credibility to an article that is encyclopedic. With this page, the sources are publicity/press releases and the endorsements are coming from the employees. With suggestive photos, this seems more promotional, rather than "informational." We hope the editors who vote can take a closer look at the references (these speak for themselves). @K.e.coffman, SportingFlyer, HighKing, Northamerica1000, XOR'easter, Davey2010, and Gene93k: pinging. !dave 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources, and they're mostly quotes from the CEO of the company, mentions in a general discussion of virtuality reality porn etc, or random awards. Fails WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not meant to have a dog in this debate, but WP:SPIP is a very good point when taking the non-press release sources into account. !dave 12:18, 27 February 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) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keiana Cavé

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

Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources - Forbes, NOLA, MTV. Also WP:BIAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryALeung (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a girl who was one of 30 yearly Forbes scholars. Not super special. I agree her resume is impressive for a kid, but her legacy is currently unencyclopedic Jamalcrao (talk) 05:31, 23 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While being named on that list certainly contributes to notability, it is not sufficient in itself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, this seems like a case of WP:PROMOTION. I hope, however, that her article can be resurrected in the future as more accomplishments follow. Right now, this article also seems to have a case of one-itis, in which the subject is only notable for being a member of the Forbes 30 Under 30, thus violating WP:GNG. Carajou (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, even I agree this is a puff piece. Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Tacyarg (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 05:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi

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

the subject regularly appears in the news for being the chief of an entity but I think he fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, not an elected MP. Saqib (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: how does he not meet GNG? Three of the six sources explicitly have his name in the headline itself, and are to major national-level Pakistani newspapers. He's the head of one of the most prominent proscribed militant groups in the country. Nobody is claiming he meets Notability as a politician (since he wasn't seated) but simply his leadership of ASWJ and the coverage he's had in that capacity easily meet GNG. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I think I've misread this BLP.. the subject may fail POLITICIAN but indeed pass GNG. --Saqib (talk) 05:22, 23 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara J. McMorrow

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

Non-notable county level politician. Sourcing is very weak, her biography on the county website a local newspaper article. Nothing that would pass WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another hyperlocal New Jersey politician, four sources, all related to her political career; not independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County freeholder is not a position that confers an automatic notability freebie on every person who's ever held it, but this article is not sourced well enough to get her over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Mrs. McMorrow was only the second woman in the history of the county to hold the position of Director of the Board of Chosen Freeholders." per "Barbara J. McMorrow - Committeewoman". Township of Freehold. Retrieved 24 February 2018.

Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE should prevail here.Djflem (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the second woman to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not in and of itself an automatic notability freebie that exempts a woman from having to be the subject of the same amount of media coverage as anybody else in that role would have to show to qualify for an article — even being the first woman to hold an otherwise non-notable role wouldn't automatically exempt a woman from having to be well-sourced. If holding that role had simultaneously made her the first or second woman to hold political office in the entire United States, then that would be something — but merely being the first or second woman to hold office within one particular, not inherently notable government body, when hundreds or thousands of women preceded her in other political roles, is not a notability boost over and above her other colleagues. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cite was to clarify the validity of the redirect, which would be appropriate, not to make a claim.Djflem (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to nominator and others regarding Delete

What is the response to proposed alternative to deletion if you still think the article should be deleted instead. Please elaborate why.Djflem (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "notes" column in a list of officeholders is not supposed to contain full-on biographical quasi-articles — if a person doesn't qualify to have their own standalone article, then the list that includes their name does not get to include all of a standalone article's potential content about them as a substitute for the lack of a standalone article. The column is only supposed to contain extremely basic notes on the order of "died in office", not extended biographies. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A total lack of notability. A search for Barbara J. McMorrow]] would bring up the list, we don't need a redirect or merge here. There are also a ton of non-notable articles about minor New Jersey politicians. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding a small county-level office does not confer notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a local politician with nothing to show that she has actual significance. This is not "Wikipedia of minor elected officials of New Jersey", although some editors seem to have tried to turn it into such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors. There is a very clear consensus not to have a standalone article about this individual. No argument has been advanced as to why this shouldn't be a redirect, and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theophilus Little

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

Failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Only source is freeholder meeting minutes which is a primary source (and a date isn't even provided). Rusf10 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hyperlocal New Jersey politician not otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County freeholder is not a position that confers an automatic notability freebie on every person who's ever held it, but this article is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per Ellis, Franklin (1885), History of Monmouth County, New Jersey, Jas. B. Rodgers Printing Co.

Delete Holding a small county-level office does not confer notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research gained from public body minutes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: As per Djflem have mentioned at above, it doesn't look notability for me. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:19, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry P. Little

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

Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Other than a recent short article from the AP about him apologizing for claiming marijuana was more addictive than cocaine [40], there is no coverage of him outside of the local newspaper. Rusf10 (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hyperlocal New Jersey politician not otherwise independently notable (even with the drug claim). SportingFlyer (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County freeholder is not a position that confers an automatic notability freebie on every person who's ever held it, but this article is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 23 February 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 23:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Wyndham

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Her career never appeared to have household-name status. The article itself also has little going for it. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS. Seems to be fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending WP:HEY. Article needs improvement, no question, but again, another pre-Google-age actor where there looks to be adequate number of roles and coverage. Mustn't confuse quality with notability. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that is the level of coverage we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. High fives all around for the good faith shown here, but it looks like this is not going to reach a decisive conclusion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cockman Family

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

Notability concerns. The only reference with significant coverage is [41], and that's not independent. The rest are to awards of no particular notability. The appearance on a local PBS program doesn't convey notability on its own, nor do performance announcements like [42]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have received a few local media mentions but not enough significant coverage to merit a Wikipedia article. Those sources use terms like "influential" and "popular" in their region, but even after 30 years of existence they still need to be noticed by the independent media at large. Good luck to them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as influential in their region for the specific style of bluegrass so passes criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC as evidenced by their coverage in a television documentary directly about them which also passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yeah, I know, a third relist. But I'd like people to have the chance to discuss Atlantic306's assertion that they meet WP:NMUSIC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my vote above was to "Delete," and in response to Atlantic306's vote I could be persuaded to change to "Weak Delete." The group has been mentioned in regional media periodically over the years, but in quantity I am not quite convinced that those mentions are significant and non-trivial. They indeed appeared in a PBS special, but search for the title of that program and you will find that it only attracted trivial notice in itself. So I respectively disagree that #7 of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied because of the term "prominent" in that criterion. The group has appeared in media listings and award ceremonies that themselves are hardly notable. Again, they do good work and I wish them luck. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If not criteria 7 think they pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 12: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", as their christmas programme was shown nationally according to this source here Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD remains in a stalemate, Admins can contact my Talk page for additional comments if desired, though I will probably be absent until mid-March. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Scotlandd... Sandstein 23:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Amusement Park Museum

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in sources, most of which are only local media outlets. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Scotlandd) I think this museum deserves a wikipedia page, I will update it over time and add more to it, the museum is still growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotlandd (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it lacks notability. Are you able to find reliable sources detailing the museum? Also, Facebook is not a WP:RS. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search for sources doesn't bring up much more than what's in the article, which features the museum's website and two articles that aren't directly about the museum and mention it in passing. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Scotlandd) It is hard to find anything from other sites about them, but the facebook page and website is coming directly from the owners, so if anybody knows information about it, it has to be them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotlandd (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a great argument for deletion, to be honest. We require independent sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Reykjavik (Psychic TV album)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:25, 22 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized {{R from album}} and {{R to section}}. Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:38, 25 February 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) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

America Suresh

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

Non-notable actor with only passing mentions and fluff pieces in mostly unreliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads too much like a puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, references are unreliable. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actor and article written as puffery. All sources listed are gossip magazines and not reliable. --Hagennos^Talk 00:48, 25 February 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. Any remaining articles not bundled here should be nominated as another group. czar 03:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Virgin Islands men's junior national softball team

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

Lacks all notability Fram (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same total lack of notability:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not a reason for deletion. As no valid reason has been provided for deletion, default to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless someone provides multiple sources that how these are notable. Google search came out with nothing. Orientls (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist all :-)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete all The fact that the only source for all of these seems to be the same website listing of results is telling. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to an article like "softball in the British Virgin Islands" (which probably isn't an article). SportingFlyer (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can't conceive of many under-17 teams being notable, even if playing internationally. No substantive sources, and you can nominate Bahamas national under-17 basketball team and its ilk next, please. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually everything in Category:Men's junior national softball teams can be deleted. Even though others have multiple sentences, It's laughable to call this a GNG-contributing source. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Orientls (talk) 11:37, 26 February 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. A clear consensus to delete Thomas J. Lynch Jr. and Ray Kramer. Joseph C. Irwin was withdrawn. As an aside, ad hominem comments are deprecated and carry little weight in a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Lynch Jr.

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

Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only source is freeholder meeting minutes (a primary source, without even a date provided. Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all articles with the same notability problem and containing the same sourcing:

Delete All I agree re: lack of notability for all three.TH1980 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Joseph C. Irwin article says he was a part of the state assembly. If anyone has Newspapers.com account could they clip this article. [43] From the OCR Assemblyman Haydn Proctor, Brad- I ley Beach, and his Republican running mate, Joseph C. Irwin, in the face of nearly complete returns, were elected to the state assembly. The OCR usually messes some words up, best to read the actual paper if someone has access. That would pass WP:NPOL for him, but for the other two nothing as far as I can tell at the moment. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From Red Bank Register Newspaper Archives, two articles after his death confirming: Nov. 1 1987 Nov. 2 1987. I will be voting keep for Joseph C. Irwin only. Also there is about 50 years worth of articles that he is in, he would pass WP:GNG as well. I've updated the article with a little bit of information from the Nov. 1 source. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other two as nothing seems to show them passing GNG, and I can't find any higher level than county offices held. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given proof that Irwin actually did serve in the state assembly, I withdraw support for deletion of that article only.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irwin aside, hyperlocal New Jersey politicians not otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yet another in a series of problematic nominations from an editor who fails to read articles or understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE. Of the four articles Rusf10 targeted for mass deletion, two are for individuals who had served in the New Jersey General Assembly, including Joseph C. Irwin (listed here) and the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Boud for which Rusf10 "accidentally nominated wrong article". For the other two articles, Rusf10 has been repeatedly admonished to consider alternatives to deletion and has persistently refused to do so. Both of the articles for non-Assembly members -- Ray Kramer and Thomas J. Lynch Jr. -- should have been considered for merge / redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors per policy, which Rusf10 stubbornly refuses to comply, and for which the nominator offers no explanation for refusing to consider the option to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE, an approach that would have been supported by the overwhelming majority of editors. As stated in the header of this and every other AfD, and as ignored here, "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."
Two of the articles never should have been considered for deletion and the other two should default to merge / redirect. Rusf10 is zero for four here. Competence is required in Wikipedia, particularly in matters of deletion; Rusf10 has demonstrated a fundamental lack of competence here. After a speedy keep, the nominator should spend the requisite time to review and demonstrate a meaningful understanding of Wikipedia policy before any further such nominations and the disruption they cause. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey alansohn, its actually your competence that should be questioned. Time after time, you just post stuff without reading because of your "keep at all costs" philosophy. Here's a great example of your failure to read (or comprehend or maybe both) [44] Your explanation was that you copied the wrong thing. Well, if I'm not allowed to make mistakes, I guess you are not allowed either. Of course, I self-corrected by mistake almost immediately and so how would you know that I nominated Charles H. Boud for deletion? Well, that must be WP:STALKING, the very thing you try to accuse me of. So why don't you stop acting like a clown?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- as for the possibility of a merge, when someone produces some real sources to satisfy WP:V, maybe I'll consider it. As of right now, the articles a unsourced. The poorly cited freeholder minutes are not likely to contain biographical details of either subject.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:BEFORE both require *YOU*, as the nominator, to look for sources *BEFORE* you start a nomination; not to demand that other editors do your work for you. Are you saying that you searched for sources for both Kramer and Lynch and could not find a single source to confirm that either of them served as Freeholder Director of Monmouth County? Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd remind both of you to remember WP:UNCIVIL. In light of this discussion, I'm keeping my delete vote: a freeholder director of Monmouth County is not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN, and with the exception of the state representatives must otherwise pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For officeholders at the county level, finding one source which confirms the holding of the role is not enough in and of itself to pass NPOL. Local politicians have to be shown as the subject of enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, not just single-sourced as existing, before they can be kept. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lynch and Kramer; I would have been a keep on Irwin because of the state legislature, but he's already been withdrawn. County freeholder is not a position that confers an automatic notability freebie on every person who's ever held it, but these articles are not sourced well enough to get them over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage.
Please note, as well, that not everybody has equal access to all of the same possible resources to determine whether better sourcing is available or not — please read WP:ATTP, "be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." So arguments to the nominator's competence are to cease immediately — keep your arguments one way or the other on the matter of whether improved sourcing can be found or not. It's not enough to argue that adequate sourcing might exist: the existence of adequate sourcing needs to be shown, not merely theorized as possible, before "GNG is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily on what's already present in the article" is a valid keep rationale. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Thomas J. Lynch Jr. to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ray Kramer to Mayor of Asbury Park, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE should prevail here.Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to nominator and others regarding Delete

Under which specific criteria cited in Wikipedia:BUNDLE are these articles being nominated in a group?

What is your response to proposed alternative to deletion if you still think the article should be deleted instead. Please elaborate why.Djflem (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just went through this, read above, I am not going to repeat myself. As for WP:BUNDLE it says "Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together.", I don't know what you mean by "specific criteria".--Rusf10 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the specific reasons you "feel" they should be deleted together?

What are the specific other specific criteria in WP:BUNDLE other than your ""feelings"?

As stated "Another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Please elaborate why.Djflem (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding a small county-level office does not confer notability. Sources here are not substantial. Please nominate the rest of the non-notable officeholders on this list as well. Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. I'm also seeing a pattern of "keep everything that has anything to do with NJ" from votes by AlanSohn, as pointed out previously by Rusf10, so I don't think those votes can be regarded as useful. Rockypedia (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in all AfDs: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why.". That has happened and there are appropriate targets.Djflem (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering all alternatives to deletion, I'd still recommend delete, with redirect the second choice. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATD does not require the preservation of all content that has ever been added to Wikipedia at all — people attempt many types of content on here for which there's no encyclopedic reason to retain anywhere. In fact, there's a longstanding consensus that lists of officeholders are not supposed to contain extended mini-biographies of everybody who doesn't already have a standalone article to link to instead — I've noticed that in some of the recent AFD batches on smalltown mayors and New Jersey county freeholders, people have been trying to undermine that consensus by turning the lists into extended biographical dictionaries again, but that's not what they're supposed to be. If a person doesn't meet our inclusion standards to qualify for a standalone biographical article, then there's no purpose or value in just pasting that entire article verbatim into the list as a substitute, because that's a misuse of the list. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is meant to cover only individuals who have received covereage in reliable, secondary sources. It is not a place for original research. Thus an article that only is sourced to a primary source, the minutes of a government body, needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - position is apparently not inherently notable, and there's insufficient coverage of him in the media. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2009/05/21/PennMoney/

[2] ttps://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/noted-green-activist-goes-red/article961446/

[3] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=dNwchA9fRN8C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22briony+penn%22+%22Lady+Godiva%22&source=bl&ots=VzDplGF9ve&sig=hsnH-NLgpgWexWEvbkF1UjjLRY0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5vdWn0JzZAhUTS2MKHbvIDsA4ChDoAQgzMAI#v=onepage&q=%22briony%20penn%22%20%22Lady%20Godiva%22&f=false

[4] ttps://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/bc-book-prizes-2016-winners-announced

[5] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22briony+penn%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]