Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 January	21 January >

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 redirect to Cyber Girl of the Year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Michelle Barré[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. The honour listed is not significant and well-known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). The first nomination closed as "procedural keep" due to the behaviour of the nominator. Seven years on, I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyber Girl of the Year, where the subject is mentioned, as per WP:ATD-R. A valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyber Girl of the Year per above. --Michig (talk) 09:47, 27 January 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. Apparent hoax. The creator's other articles should be scrutinized as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher Keats[edit]

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

fails WP:ARTIST, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. I don't believe his book passes helps him pass WP:ARTIST either. Not seeing reliable source coverage for this subject, just his own website, some blogs, etc. And yes, one picture that he took appeared in the New York Times, but it does not seem that he is a regular contributor. Rusf10 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious. The article mentions Rosalind Solomon; and as her work interests me, this was the first (minor) aspect of the article that I examined. What I found, or didn't, surprised me. The article currently tells us: For several years in the mid 1980s, he assisted Rosalind Solomon with film development and printing. He also helped Solomon with her gear as she photographed in Washington Square Park and photographed people with AIDS. It presents as a reference "{{cite web|url=http://www.rosalindsolomon.com/biography.htm |title=Rosalind Solomon Bio |publisher=Rosalindsolomon.com |accessdate=January 21, 2012}}". Here is that web page as archived by the Wayback Machine just eight days earlier (13 January 2012). Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention within it of "thatcher" or of "keats". This factoid goes back to the very first version of the article (2 December 2010), which told readers: In 1983 he also worked with Arthur Tress, assisting him on his Hospital series,[reference] and for several years in the mid 80's with Rosalind Solomon on her work about AIDS, a relationship that continues today. The reference for the second half of that was "[http://www.rosalindsolomon.com/biography.htm Rosalind Solomon Bio]". I haven't examined the reference for the first half of that sentence and don't propose to do so (life's too short); but here and here are the web page of the second reference, as archived by the Wayback Machine on 21 July 2010 and 15 July 2011 respectively. Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention of "thatcher" or of "keats" in either of these archived versions. The assertion that Keats helped Solomon may be true, but the "reference" for it -- both as supplied by Jgrahame (first version of the article) and as confirmed (here) by Ohconfucius -- appears to be fictional. (Or have I misunderstood something? I'd be most interested in comments on this by Jgrahame and Ohconfucius.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More weirdness. I find that this article exerts a horrible fascination. OK, I give in: let's continue, and consider Keats' relationship with Arthur Tress, as mentioned above. The reader is told: In 1983 he also worked with Arthur Tress, assisting him on his Hospital series; and this cites as a source {{cite web|url=http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/previous_results.asp?Exhib_ID=44 |title=Corcoran Gallery of Art |publisher=Corcoran.org |accessdate=January 21, 2012}}. Another page that's now dead, but it lives on at the Wayback Machine. On 21 January 2012, Ohconfucius stated that it was retrieved on 21 January 2012. Here is what Wayback retrieved on 7 December 2011. Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention within it of "thatcher" or of "keats". ¶ Perhaps Jgrahame's idea of sourcing is (1) to find something on the web that mentions at least one entity of the proposition that's being sourced, and (2) to add this in order to impart a certain aura of dignity to the paragraph in question. But in what sense Ohconfucius could have confirmed all this, I don't know. ¶ Regardless of what they actually say, a lot of the "references" are to the biographee. Among the others, neither of the two I checked says what it's presented as saying. I therefore can't trust any of this stuff. Therefore, delete. (Pity, because the cover of one of his books looks interesting.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: You certainly raise a lot of legitimate issues with the article. There is only two possibilities, either the information is false or it is original research. And I agree that a number of the sources are completely irrelevant as if they were added to the article to make it look like there was more sourcing than actually exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10:, I've a hunch that the "references" provided for the same article creator's Rose Marasco (first edit), Cey Adams (first edit), Marissa Roth (first edit), Lori Nix (first edit), John G. Zimmerman (first edit), Janette Beckman (first edit) and Michael Putland (first edit) should also be scrutinized. -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary:- I went ahead and nominated Marissa Roth for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Roth. The others seem to pass the notability guidelines for one reason or another, but need a ton of cleanup.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 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! 08:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Woodworth[edit]

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

BLP lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only major source is a primary source (oral history interview) and no meaningful results in online searches. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:BLP, you cannot use the sbuject's own book to establish notability. I can't find anything else either.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note–I'm not !voting, since I'm not a neutral party. I've been subscribing to and financially supporting (in a very small way) Woodworth's The Match! since the mid-70s. I'd prefer to see this entry remain on WP, but the only online references I can find are on anarchy-related blogs, one local-press YouTube, and echoes and reflections of the WP article at issue here. If this article survives, the redirect made at The Match! should point here rather than to a list with very little context. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This reference almost rises to the level needed: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-mcquinn-the-life-and-times-of-anarchy-a-journal-of-desire-armed-25-years-of-critical-anar
Weak keep Woodworth, whose magazine I too read and support, has been a significant figure in American anarchism in the last 30 years. (Not black bloc-style "anarchism", but anarchism among people with brains.) While his interview in Anarchist Voices is not a reliable source, historian Paul Avrich's page-long introduction to the interview is an RS and should help establish Woodworth's notability. Woodworth was a prominent activist in American Atheists during the 1970s and 1980s. He is also notoriously computer-averse and prints his magazine by linotype. Between that and the facts that American anarchism of the late 20th/early 21st centuries was eclipsed by the black bloc and most materials about American Atheists are of pre-internet vintage, Google will not help establish Woodworth's notability (although I did find some things, like a paragraph about him in this article about the counter-culture in Arizona and his pamphlet about anarchism at Dana Ward's Anarchy Archives). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you both read the magazine, but are not aware of independent references discussing the writer in a meaningful way, how likely is it that the subject will be considered notable from a Wikipedia perspective? --Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited an independent reference, Paul Avrich's Anarchist Voices. Contemporary political movements outside the mainstream, especially those that operate "off the grid", are not covered in sources considered reliable on Wikipedia. (Initially I started that sentence with "Unfortunately", but I don't think it's unfortunate that nobody associated with anarchism has blown up any buildings or assassinated any political or business leaders in recent decades.) I don't have access this weekend to a quality library, but I think I've given some leads that an interested editor could pursue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are not shown to be notable based on their own publications, but based on works created by others about them. We lack the latter on Woodworth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There seems to be enough coverage to justify an article either on Woodworth or on The Match!, though I'm not sure there's enough for both. I see more coverage of the magazine on Google Book Search than I do on Woodworth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both topics have abysmal coverage. I put the only usable source for The Match at the redirect's target. czar 02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the author of the article I say go ahead and delete it. Radical Mallard (talk) 11:45, 24 January 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! 08:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois)[edit]

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

No sign of notability at all, does not satisfy WP:GNG or more importantly WP:NCORP. Appears to just be a local church with an article, almost entirely unsourced or primary sources. No hint of any non-trivial mention in google or google news search. Was tagged for notability in November, no indication that any support is forthcoming or exists at all. Not fit for merging into Hodgkins, Illinois because it is just a local church of no particular significance. Churches do not get an article merely because they exist. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Relevant history section is already in Hodgkins, Illinois and the rest is not notable. Tacyarg (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with even the history section there is that it cites the self-published church material. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be notable. Though a little over a hundred years old, there doesn't seem to be any notability claim such as being in a historic building or extensive news coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 21 January 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. Tone 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shift.ms[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable charity and social network. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is mostly self-promotions and executive quotes. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing; pls see Special:Contributions/Bigredlighthouse. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original author being blocked for promotion would not be an ongoing issue if the subject was notable and other editors had developed the article since its creation but, checking the history, I see that nobody else seems to care about this subject. The article is very close to being an orphan. The charity has only 8 alleged staff. Its website seems to suggest that its only activity is the operation of a very small specialist online social network. Even if we might be inclined to give a charity more benefit of the doubt than a for-profit company, this is not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:47, 21 January 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 Inc. (magazine). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. 30 under 30[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of information and unencyclopedic categorisation. The honour is minor and does not confer presumed notability on its recipients. Significant and independent RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN isn't relevant here because here the list is an actual thing outside of our content that this article is about (like Nixon's Enemies List, or even more on point as another annual list published in a magazine, People (magazine)#100 Most Beautiful People). We should just go straight to GNG, and should expect secondary source coverage, not just the magazine itself for sourcing. If it is not independently notable, then this should be redirected to Inc. (magazine) where it may merit a mention but not a wholesale reproduction of their lists year after year. Copying their lists would also raise copyright concerns as their compilation is not factual but editorial and creative. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I find no coverage of the list in independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inc. (magazine). Coverage is mostly from primary sources. Lorstaking (talk) 13:19, 26 January 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! 08:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Degree Programs in Central Europe[edit]

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

No evidence supporting that this collection of courses is notable. Appears to be a vanity article for the University of Pécs Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lead is "This article considers Business Degree Programs in English at the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of Pécs", which is clearly a different topic from the title of the article, and not a notable stand-alone topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 21 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gavigan[edit]

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

Not notable, seems to be a synthesis of unrelated ideas. Prod removed without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being covered in numerous sources including:

Irish Family Names: With Origins, Meanings, Clans, Arms, Crests, and Mottoes
Personal and Family Names: A Popular Monograph on the Origin and History of the Nomenclature of the Present and Former Times
The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland
The Surnames of Ireland
More Irish Families
Varieties and Synonymes of Surnames and Christian Names in Ireland
Clans and Families of Ireland
Irish Families: Their Names, Arms, and Origins
Irish Pedigrees - Or, the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation
The Book of Irish Families, Great & Small

Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No Opinion The entire article is copy-and-pasted from [1].–dlthewave ☎ 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Edit: Change to No Opinion. There's a decent amount of content left after removing the copyvio and efforts are being made to build up the article. I'll leave it to others to determine notability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lead and the first section don't seem to come from that page. Andrew D. (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are enough people with the surname to meet WP:APONOTE. – Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I could change my mind if it was well cited. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of people bearing a surname, plus a few etymological notes about that surname, is an entirely fine and unremarkable page to have. Now adequately sourced. Should be renamed per WP:APONOTE to Gavigan (surname). XOR'easter (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a rename would be necessary only if there existed some other article at the same title (and it was the primary topic), see WP:APOTITLE. – Uanfala (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article seems to pass the deletion policy regarding names and surnames.--Rpclod (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tart[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only notable work is on Party Over Here, and some alleged writing on Mad TV. Comedy Bang Bang only a handful of episodes among hundreds released. No significant coverage articles to meet WP:GNG; the only two references provided are a profile from Upright Citizens Brigade (comedy group) (primary source) and a passing mention in a cast announcement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative references are given to support notability. WP:NACTOR criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:59, 21 January 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! 08:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 855[edit]

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

This doesn't meet the notability standards, either in general or supplemental, for coverage in a stand-alone article or even, arguably, for mentioning in the type article's accidents-and-incidents section. The engines flamed out due to bad maintenance, the pilots restarted one, they landed. There was no hull loss, no fatalities or even injuries, and aside from "you screwed up the maintenance, here's a rule to Do It Better", there were no significant changes to procedures or regulations as a result of the incident. It was a close one, but close doesn't count. Note that in 2011 a PROD was declined on the basis of "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" - but a search doesn't seem to show it; there's plenty of routine coverage of the "this incident happened; here's how; here's what you can do to avoid making the same mistakes, and here's what you can do if your mechanic didn't watch the previous bit" type, and the only book coverage that would indicate "beyond the routine" is a self-published, vaguely fringey title or two.

(edit: It's also worth noting, or at least disclosing, that the article was created by a long-since site-banned editor who was (and is, as he's one of our most persistent sockpuppeteers) notorious for pushing non-notable aircraft accidents into every possible article.)

TLDR: doesn't meet notability standards, no continuing coverage, shouldn't have an article accordingly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recall this incident because at the time I was visiting my parents in South Florida. This incident is certainly more noteworthy than Northwest Airlines Flight 5 which also has a Florida connection. Usually I am in favor of delete, but for this article I'm on the fence as of now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major airliner losing thrust in all engines is a very rare and notable event regardless of why. British Airways Flight 9's engines flamed out simply because the pilots weren't properly informed where volcanic ash was and that flight had zero fatalities or injuries and no haul loss. While I believe the nom made a good-faith effort to confirm the previous PROD-removal rationale, "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" but I've learned over the years searching with simply an article title isn't always efficient. Firstly in 1993, there was a huge amount of coverage from the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post and UPI and many others (these here are just samples). [2][3][4] with the full NTSB report in 1984.[5] Secondly, very in-depth coverage continued for decades, like that of the 2017 book Behind Human Error (authors include Sidney Dekker). [6] Other in-depth coverage include the the 2008 book Is it Safe?: Why Flying Commercial Airliners is Still a Risky Business, and what Can be Done about it [7] and the 2008 book 35 Miles from Shore: The Ditching and Rescue of ALM Flight 980 (some pages missing from this preview) [8].--Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The search was done by the flight number, and the sources you mention above are exactly the sort of routine coverage any incident like this produces. Furthermore, Is It Safe? is a self-published book and thus not a reliable source (and is also exactly the one I mentioned in the nom as 'self-published with a conspiritorial tone'). I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, as it's an interesting incident, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it's a Wikinotable one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE coverage is "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" and of course the coverage that is decades later - or even just after the incident happened - is nothing of a sort. The Wikinotable is of being the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that spreads over decades thus easily passing WP:GNG. Even if you exclude that one book out of all the coverage, this still is easily Wikinoable.--Oakshade (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a 1983 mechanical failure is not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a 1983 mechanical failure suddenly mean this did not receive in-depth coverage spanning decades thus passing WP:GNG not to mention there was not a total engine failure of a major jetliner? --Oakshade (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the event has received significant coverage in multiple sources. In addition to the books already mentioned, this event received an entire chapter's worth of coverage in the book Emergency! Crisis on the Flight Deck by Stanley Stewart. The book also has chapters devoted to American Airlines Flight 96, British Airways Flight 9, TWA Flight 841 (1979), the Gimli Glider and the Cessna 188 Pacific rescue, among others. YSSYguy (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The near-disaster has also been discussed in Neil Johnston; Nick McDonald (2017). Aviation Psychology in Practice. Routledge. pp. 109–113. ISBN 978-1840141337. (first published 1994) where it says "As a result of the Miami incident, there has been a regulatory change in the US to prevent such an accident from occurring again." The type of maintenance procedures required at the time are now prohibited. This meets WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles #3 and WP:GNG with continuing coverage as well as very extensive press reporting at the time. The nomination is misconceived. Thincat (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage through many, many years including academic books. This is a complete failure of every engine on a large jet, why are we even discussing this? Longstanding coverage is inevitable. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable aviation incident, easily passes GNG. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and shouldn't really be used in AFDs, the article still passes those requirements. More importantly it passes WP:GNG and there are plenty of other accepted similar articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it's clear there's a consensus this is notable, and that's more than fine, I wish people would stop saying "it's [only] an essay!". Lots of the SNGs are only essays (as is WP:ATA for that matter). The fact it's only an essay isn't relevant when it's being used as a shortcut to typing out three paragraphs of "this is what the consensus on the subject is" every time it comes up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi The Bushranger I did not mean to imply that WP:AIRCRASH should be disregarded, quite the opposite I was stating that the article in question fits the criteria set out in WP:AIRCRASH. However the ultimate aim is WP:GNG, and in it's purpose as an essay WP:AIRCRASH and other's are suppose to be helpfully paths twords concurrences, not the end all be all. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not noteworthy, comes under "bad day at the office" scenario, nobody hurt, kick the tires and life moves on like hundreds of other non-noteworthy incidents that happen every day. MilborneOne (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of hundreds of other major jetliner passenger flights that all engines flamed out? Are you aware of such a catastrophic failure occurring hundreds of times a day? Just like Air Canada Flight 143 or British Airways Flight 9 in which there was nobody hurt, this is far beyond a "bad day at the office." Most people's "bad day at the office" aren't significantly written about decades later by reliable sources and pass WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or alternatively, this could be merged into a paragraph on a list of aircraft problems. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any argument based on actual guidelines like WP:GNG? --Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All references are to two NTSB reports. NTSB responds to many incidents. An NTSB report doesn't make the underlying incident notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, there's much more than the NTSB reports in significant coverage and analysis spanning decades.--Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: - article expanded with other sources. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, a mention at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft should be enough. An engine failure while far from an everyday occurrence is not that unusual and nobody died, so I don't see the lasting impact of the event.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is not meant for incidents that have enduring notability such as this one as in-depth significant coverage has continued for decades after the incident. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This incident started with an engine shutdown due to falling oil pressure, followed by a double engine failure, meaning this three-engine aircraft become a glider until the crew managed to restart the engine they had shut down. That engine failed after the aircraft landed. The unusual circumstances are irrelevant. That the aircraft did not crash is irrelevant. If the incident received some write-ups in the news and was then forgotten about, I would be !voting delete, but this demonstrably passes the General Notability Guidelines, as there has been significant coverage - not passing mentions - of the subject, with analysis, in several books decades after the event. YSSYguy (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Thincat. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets in-depth coverage in academic sources from reputable sources such as Routledge as recently as 2017. [9] A look at other Google Books hits shows continuing coverage in the decades since the incident, meaning this passes the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As many editors have stated above, this incident attracted the attention of many journalists and authors in the years following. In addition, the flight crew each received an award from ALPA. These are not given out for anything less than outstanding airmanship. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the surface this is an easy delete as a non notable event. Additional digging reveals lots of substantial coverage long after the incident. - Samf4u (talk) 18:45, 26 January 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. General theme seems to be, poor article, but clearly notable. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Killian Curse[edit]

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

Deprodded for being a nationally broadcast TV series, but I found literally zero sources. Just placeholder directory listings and fansites. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep broadcast on NZ 2nd national TV station and on Australia national TV so there are likely to be sources if only offline such as this here which is only available in NZ libraries. They also made a third series in 2014 which is detailed here This primary source shows it was screened in Australia here , this source shows national TV in NZ here Reviews are probably offline or paywalled Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: So basically you scraped together some trivial passing mentions and admit the rest are "probably" offline. WP:BURDEN. Also, sources belong in the article, not in the AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aired on a national television network for two seasons, passes for me. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Even if there is literally zero coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Keep~~ but needs serious improvement. Per Nate, it aired on a national TV network and we can prove it exists and is not a hoax, the only question seems to be the substance of sourcing. Chetsford (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer - thanks for the ping. I was evaluating two AfDs simultaneously when I wrote this and must have been scanning the incorrect tab. You're correct; I've modified my !vote accordingly. Chetsford (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The source I first added can only be viewed in NZ libraries and is directly about the series so you cannot say it is a passing mention as you can't see it , it is only available offline, the source about the third series is an article directly about it and is therefore significant content. Adding references to the article can also be done by the nominator and is as much up to them as anyone else and sources are included in every discussion. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, if the article is kept I will add references to the article Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, won one national award, was nominated for another. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SarekOfVulcan. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winning "Achievement in Sound Design in General Television" in the Qantas Film and Television Awards 2008 does not show notability. WP:TVSHOW states:

Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market.

In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program might be notable enough for inclusion if it played a solidly sourceable role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage.

Reliable sources do not need to be accessible online (although that may be more useful to Wikipedia users), so bibliographic cites to offline authoritative references would suffice. However reliable sources are needed to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:25, 21 January 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 10:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Albania MC-130 Combat Shadow II Crash[edit]

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

Military accidents are generally non-notable regardless of how many are killed. Notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties, extensive infrastructure damage, changes to legislation or operational doctrine, etc. etc., or anything that could be construed as notable in it's own right, such as notable passengers WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and as a guide: WP:AIRCRASH Petebutt (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which of our policies says "notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties" - this easily meets GNG and you should have checked before nominating - the fact that only military personnel were killed is not a valid grounds for nomination, neither is your personal opinion that civilian deaths are more notable, and I suggest you withdraw this ill-conceived nomination: cnn nbc chicago tribune stars and stripes SeraphWiki (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete military aircraft accidents are fairly common and are rarely noteworthy for a stand-alone article unless they kill or hit something notable. I cant see anything in this accident that passes the bar for a stand-alone article. A mention in List of accidents and incidents involving the Lockheed C-130 Hercules is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for a separate article; unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence. Agree with MilborneOne as to where is should be mentioned in a separate article. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet we still have articles on:

2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack
2017 Jerusalem truck attack
2017 Portland train attack
2017 Halamish stabbing attack (a "massacre" where three people were killed)
June 2017 Jerusalem attack
2008 Jerusalem BMW attack
2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack (which is so common it needed its own DAB page)
2014 Jerusalem tractor attack
2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing
2016 Jerusalem shooting attack

It seems any incident where an "Israeli civilian" is killed or even just targeted is worthy of a standalone article (despite repeated efforts to have these articles merged to lists during AfDs), but an incident where 9 members of the United States military lose their lives is non-notable and "a fairly common occurrence". It's shameful, if not surprising. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of them appear to be aircraft accidents so I am not sure what the relevance is here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, its not a valid policy grounds for deletion. The correct policy is WP:NOTNEWS and at least some of these articles have been challenged under that policy and closed keep, as well as many other minor "terrorist attacks" or "attempted attacks" throghout the world. Invariably, the AfD discussion closes keep. These attacks are actually more common than military plane or helicopter crashes and nine deaths is a high number for a single crash. There is no policy based justification to keep every terrorist attack article and delete articles about military accidents. The lives of members of the United States military are just as valuable as civilian lives. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still dont get the relevance of terrorist attacks, this is about a military aircraft crash during training I dont see any terrorist involvement. I also dont see the fact that they were United States military involved which has no relevance to it being noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stating that in your own words, because it gets to the heart of the problem with how this policy is applied, the policy does not turn on whether there is "terrorist involvement" or whether deaths of U.S. military has "relevance to it being noteworthy" - I reviewed and accepted the article through AfC based on my knowledge of previous AfDs involved the policy WP:NOTNEWS. The relevant part of the policy in these discussions is whether the occurrence is "routine". In August 2017 there had been 14 non-combat aviation crashes that year [10] - there were more terrorist attacks in any given month of 2017. Editorial POV that terrorist attacks are more inherently notable than United States military deaths in plane crashes has absolutely no policy-based justification SeraphWiki (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you have lost me and I dont know where this "routine" stuff comes from or why you are comparing military aircraft training accidents with Terrorist attacks or any other disimilar subject, the point is the accident noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article on its own merits. It clearly isnt, we dont compare "notability" between unrelated subjects. Most of the subjects you mention I fail to get the connection as far as I know no Israeli civilians were involved or even terrorists, it was just an accident during a training flight. Military training is risky stuff. Not sure what accidents in August 2017 have to do with it, the date or time of year is not relevant, nationality of the victims is not relevant. Being military is relevant as civilian aircraft dont normally fly through the mountains in the dark at low level using night vision equipment. A large civilian aircraft that flies into a mountain with fatalties would be noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have to say this but if you are not familiar with the policy involved then you should not be supporting deletion of an article, especially as an admin. The policy involved is WP:NOTNEWS - it is the same for military plane crashes and terrorist attacks (in Israel or elsewhere). The policy says For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia and this is the point that is most often discussed at AfD. The number of military plane crashes per year relative to the number of terrorist attacks is relevant, as anyone who has previously participated in these AfDs would be aware of, because a military plane crash is not "routine news" - that is why I decided to accept the draft. Otherwise this topic easily passes WP:GNG and I don't think there is any policy-based justification to support deletion here.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly we are not on the same wavelength but thanks for for your arguments using NOTNEWS as it clearly calls for deletion as military aircraft crashes during training comes under the "routine news" and has no persistance. (And please dont comment on the competence of others it is not clever) MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example the 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash was recreated after deletion and during the second deletion discussion many editors voted to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash. We have many other similar articles - so many that there is a navbox for them: {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015}} These nominations are perennial and there is no consensus for deletion of these articles, it should really be clarified that nominations based on the WP:AIRCRASH essay - are starting to be disruptive because it is a waste of the community's time to go over the same issues everytime. Time and time again these articles have been nominated as NOTNEWS and the AfDs have closed keep or no consensus for deletion.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally MilborneOne I would very much appreciate it if you would willingly strike your comment that "it was just an accident during a training flight." Nine members of the United States military died in that accident and you are right, it does not seem like we are on the same wavelength about that. This is not the first time I have wondered if editors are simply unaware that these discussions may be read by persons unfamiliar with "Wikispeak" - family members, or other service members, and what it would sound like to them = "just an accident" "routine news" "no relevance to it being noteworthy"... I hope these views don't reflect the views of most of the trusted members of community, but all I can say is they certainly don't reflect mine. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What it would sound to them" is not a valid argument to keep or delete, either way, and please also bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Has LASTING coverage, e.g. - [11] [12] [13]. AIRCRASH is a good essay - but military crashes of large aircraft with many crew/passengers are sometimes not pigeonholed to the criteria there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Lasting" coverage is not beyond either incidental mentions of "this happened in the past" and/or WP:PRIMARY sources which do not confer notability. It is long-standing consensus that military aircraft accidents are held to a higher bar than other aircraft crashes. This was tragic, but it does not rise to the standard that is held for these kind of accidents. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - there are, indeed, many other articles on non-notable crashes that should be deleted or merged, but their existiance does not mean we cannot delete articles on non-notasble subjects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply if there have already been AfDs that have closed keep or no consensus to delete. It is not a long-standing consensus that military aircraft are held to a higher bar- this issue has already been discussed and resolved by countless previous AfDs about military aviation accidents which have closed keep or no consensus, at least one nomiated by the same nominator with User:MilborneOne commenting there also military aircraft accidents tend not to be notable:

Not ok - completely unacceptable to use AfD to circumvent the community's notability guidelines, including WP:GNG to impose a project-specific guideline that has not been approved by the community. If you guys want to apply this, do it the right way and see whether there is actually a consensus for a new notability guideline. Until then, these nominations should stop. This has been discussed by the community multiple times, over a period of years. Nominating articles for deletion based on WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (like whether any of the passengers were "notable" as the nom. himself said) is at this point as disruptive as nominating because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the only IDONTLIKEIT here is coming from you. But since it's obvious we're each in our own opinion exceding stiff and strong, I'll step away from the elephant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not DONTLIKEIT to point out that this has been going on for at least eight years and that many editors in the community don't agree that military aviation accidents are less notable than other types of aviation accidents. If Wikiproject Aviation wants to have a community discussion about a new NAVIATION that's good, I support that, we probably need it. One of the things that will most likely be discussed is this military aviation accident issue - an essay is written by one person, it is not a guideline, it is not a policy, it has not gone through the same process or community discussion required for guidelines or policies and no editor is required to follow its recommendations to keep their work from being deleted. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bushranger's !vote summarizes the majority of my views on Wikipedia's problem with tragic news stories; his "this happened in the past" comment where editors fail or simply ignore what a passing mention applies not only to this article but to dozens of others with the same issues. Sure, other crap exists, but that is more of a reflection of some (too many) editors falling into the dark and dreary clutches of recentism even though they should know better.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the application of NOTNEWS is this inconsistent we would be better off with more specific guidelines - the practice is that we keep articles like 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack - no one who died in this incident was notable and the casualty figure was lower - but this article is kept because it is defended by Pro-Israel editors and we delete articles where members of the US military died (nine in this case, a high number for an aviation accident) because very few editors turn up to support it.
Instead of placing that burden on editors to participate in multiple long, repetitive AfDs it is past time to attempt to hammer out a real consensus about this policy. Multiple AfD discussion about NOTNEWS have closed no consensus - at this point the only standard for whether an article is kept is whether enough editors show up to force a no consensus close.
Notability can not be inherited from notability of the passengers and the nominator deserves a trout.
We need a standard policy that reflects community consensus which editors and reviewers can apply before wasting their time on creating articles and repetitive, controversial AfDs that are difficult to close. OTHERSTUFF exists is no excuse for this, its getting to a point where it is both disruptive and a drain on the community's resources. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I shall re-nominate it forthwith as it clearly fails all the criteria used to nominate this article--Petebutt (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already have consensus!! Military accidents are NOT NOTABLE in their own right!!--Petebutt (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources for this accident that it passes notability - notability is based on sources. It was covered in multiple news stories at the time, and has since been covered in books also [14] [15] so neither WP:GNG nor WP:NOTNEWS are valid grounds for deletion. Being a military accident is certainly not valid grounds to nominate an article for deletion without a WP:BEFORE check.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unfortunate, but unremarkable incident. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 26 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-South (region)[edit]

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

Not a well-defined subject. The only source cited does not use the term. Maproom (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a source that does use the term (and, in fact, is a 900+ page book titled "The Mid-South and Its Builders: Being the Story of the Development and a Forecast of the Future of the Richest Agricultural Region in the World"). A quick Google Books search returns tens of thousand of books discussing the region by name, including many focused entirely on it (e.g., Eugene R. Kuhne, A Guide to the Fishes of Tennessee and the Mid-south (1939); Mississippi State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Temperatures and Cotton Planting in the Mid-South (1964); Ronald Register, ‎Stanley Hyland, Black social institutions in the Mid-South: a dialogue between Demitri Shimkin and Nkosi Ajanaku (1978); Arlo I. Smith, A Guide to Wildflowers of the Mid-South: West Tennessee Into Central Arkansas and South Through Alabama and Into East Texas (1979); James R. Veteto, ‎Edward M. Maclin, The Slaw and the Slow Cooked: Culture and Barbecue in the Mid-South (2012)). bd2412 T 21:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No WP:BEFORE conducted, clearly widely mentioned in books. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the main second descriptive nickname of the Memphis region; it's all over the place there. WP:BEFORE. Do it. I'm sick of these 'never heard of it or using Google' noms. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known region by its inhabitants. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-known by regional inhabitants.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:50, 21 January 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. By RHaworth as G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arun babu[edit]

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

The subject of this completely unsourced BLP is non notable- a before search showed nothing. He is the founder of SCAD, a NGO which may be notable, but he certainly is not. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:14, 20 January 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! 08:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanveer Sipra[edit]

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Poet of local popularity. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Störm (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term, name in Urdu:

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

Comment: His article on Urdu Wikipedia (ur:تنویر سپرا) was unlinked in Wikidata, I have linked to it and added an {{expand language}} tag to the article here. I have added his name as an alternative search term above. There is a fair amount of hits, but I don't speak Urdu, and it's one of the languages, where I feel uncomfortable judging sources via Google Translate. What was nom's findings when they performed WP:BEFORE litra B no.6: "Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet"? Sam Sailor 09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Repeat it again, I doubt you even saw the links. They all are FB or social media links. Störm (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this تنویر سپرا help? Why wasn't his article on Urdu Wikipedia (ur:تنویر سپرا) linked in the first place? To what extent does nom read Urdu? Sam Sailor 10:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Please check the sources with alternative search in Urdu language. Störm (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: The bio on Urdu Wikipedia doesn't cite any RS, therefore the notability of the subject on that edition of Wikipedia could be questioned as well. @Störm: Quick search doesn't show anything but unfortunately we cannot depend on Google. Urdu sources including major Urdu language newspapers do not always show up in Google search results. No idea why therefore I won't be able to verify the notability, except a column in a Pakistani Daily Nawa-i-Waqt which noted the subject as a now deceased working poet from Jhelum. --Saqib (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NAUTHOR per nom, no reliable sources provided to prove notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:17, 22 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Pfaff[edit]

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

I didn't find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An offensive lineman who started one season (2017) at Va. Tech. and has not received the kind of "significant" coverage that is needed to pass the WP:GNG bar. Nor has he received any major awards of the type required to qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, only mentions of him. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college football players are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that college football players are "rarely" notable--some are and many are not. However, college offensive linemen are almost always not notable. Every other position at least generates statistics that can be measured, but offensive linemen only get bruises. There is no reason that I can see to make an exception here. Fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea what JPL is talking about. There are plenty of notable college football players. Just not this one. Lepricavark (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helpium[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NSOFT, and no significant Google search returns can be found. No coverage found in any independent sources. Only reference in article is to the software's own blog. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative references given to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 27 January 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 Earl Shilton. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Shilton in the pre-modern age[edit]

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

Excessive detail. Mostly local in nature. No notability, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Earl Shilton - it's about a small town, of course it's local in nature. --Michig (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Earl Shilton. If it is decided that this article is too long for a merge, could we start an article on the history of Earl Shilton and insert the information there? Vorbee (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article for this place is over 56K and tagged as {{too long}} with {{too many sections}} and so merger would make matters worse. The topic is notable and good sources are provided. The nomination is absurd and false and so should be speedily closed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Earl Shilton, which also needs to be seriously edited. Both these articles lack an encyclopedic tone, and ramble with little evidence of sourcing and no consideration of notability guidelines or what encyclopedic articles are supposed to cover. There is no reason an article on a place of 10,000 people should be so long and rambling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as History of Earl Shilton, possibly pruned. The fact that the village has a local history published by a mainstream publisher like Pan means that this is an exceptional case, where a separate article is justified. This looks like a significant case study. It needs to be pruned: details of the expenses incurred by Leicester Corporation on entertainment are too detailed, though the total expenditure might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Agree with John Pack Lambert about the main article. Srnec (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge There seems to be a perfectly respectable article in there struggling to get out. We should help it do so rather than smother it at birth. I agree with Andrew Davidson re sources and notability and Peterkingiron re pruning. I have put this (pruning) on my 'to do' list, along with the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A change of name to History of Earl Shilton also seems sensible, moving over the historial information from Earl Shilton. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for this to kept and worked on if it helps this to be closed - a possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. This is clearly not going to end with deletion - I don't really think it needed to be relisted. --Michig (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to History of Earl Shilton. It needs cleanup and condensing, but even after that, my guess is that it'll be too long to be merged into the main Earl Shilton article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per John Pack Lambert. Tacyarg (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above--IndyNotes (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.And the target needs a nuclear cleanup.Winged Blades^Godric 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Pack Lambert and I have already excised over a third of it. I will cut more later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 21 January 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. Tone 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine (band)[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:BAND. No sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Were a fairly big indie band back in the 1990s. A couple of sources easily found and added. The band name and their only album released at their peak being called 'Submarine' makes Googling difficult, but a band that recorded two Peel sessions is going to be notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 12 substantial coverage on a national radio station Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep might not a lot of write due to pre internet era, but enough album/singe release to pass [[ WP:NMUSIC. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:39, 26 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles in popular culture[edit]

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

Garden variety "X in popular culture" article cataloging even the most trivial mentions of Los Angeles. No sourcing, no valid content, just a list of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -and expand, it seems to only skim the surface of L.A. in pop-culture. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. The nomination is solely on the basis of current quality, not on the topic itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might be better with the more prominent examples (by whatever standard) converted to prose, but it's a legitimate subject for a page. The items are bluelinked, and the basic claim "this piece of media portrays LA" is straightforward enough that it can be sourced by the linked articles. (I mean, the source for "Blade Runner is set in LA" is Blade Runner itself.) So, it's not an article anyone should be proud of, but it doesn't merit deletion, either. I made a start on cleaning it up. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is a lot more that can be said about the way L.A. is shown in popular culture. First of all, that it is often used due its distinctive landmarks, culture, and urban concentration. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think certain information on popular culture in Los Angeles is notable, while some of the irrelevant topics can be removed by discussions, and some of the significant footnote topics can be expanded by citing the sources at any time. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:15, 24 January 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. Policy-based arguments are solidly for delete. The canvassed views expressed here do not address the core issue of lack of independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MeKin2D[edit]

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

Author is publicising their own software package without any evidence of notability. Two of the three sources cited are self authored and the third behind a paywall. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - not sufficiently notable. It may be worth including the remaining simulations in other articles where applicable. --Cadillac000 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is better sourced than, and at least as relevant as Graphmatica, KmPlot, C.a.R., Kig and DrGeo, while the simulations done with it are very useful to Wikipedia.Pasimi (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article describes mechanical simulation software that has served Wikipedia users very well by providing animated illustrations of mechanical devices on many different pages. The article documents the existence of this tool, which is appropriate and desirable. It does not advocate for or promote its use. The software is notable in that it is a lean effective simulation tool that is available at low cost. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to document software simulation tools like MeKin2D and CATIA, just like it documents other products such as the Ford Mustang and Cabbage Patch Kids. Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Special:Diff/820261302. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The simulation of the mechanisms developed by the author is very useful for teaching and understanding by the students of the principle of many mechanisms functioning. The program is useful both for didactic and research purposes, especially in the development of new mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.180.74.190 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.180.74.190 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 31.205.241.198 (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 31.205.241.198 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very useful for students and specialists dealing with kinematic analysis and synthesis of mechanisms.T. Yankova, PU "P. Hilendarski" (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — striking sock !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Tsvl (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably Cabayi is trying to invalidate any favorable vote cast in this matter. In turn I would like to call the attention upon the fact that, according to his/her Wikipedia contributions, the only negative voter so far does not have sufficient expertise in the subject of MeKin2D. In my view, Wikipedia rule changes are stringently necessary in order to clear more easily disputes like this present one:
There should be some rule changing regarding the deletion of articles, because self serving Wikipedia edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put Wikipedia on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only!
- (1) With certain exceptions, new articles should be allowed a given number of months to mature before they are proposed for deletion. Better yet, articles (new or old) should be reviewed for deletion periodically, based on their low traffic.
- (2) Voting in an article-deletion case should NOT be permitted to unregistered users.
- (3) Users known to have added content to articles of the same categories as the article proposed for deletion should be invited automatically to cast their vote. In this respect the following features should be implemented by Wikipedia developers:
- (4) The edits of registered users should be metered and used to build a database of users' expertise. An expertise rank should be easily retrievable with user's name, with the possibility of displaying it on the user page.

Note that user:simiprof and user:pasimi are the same. Simiprof (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can assess an article's worth without having significant experience in the topic area. That does not automatically invalidate the oppose itself. The simulations are very good; the point still stands that the majority of the newly introduced sources are behind a paywall and the others are self-authored. --Cadillac000 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this Wikipedia rule on notabability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." And then this: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I will also add that pointing out other self-promoting articles or other articles without notability is not an argument that this article qualifies as notable. - Rectorsquid (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rectorsquid: As mentioned on the talk page, it is apparent that your recent developments to Linkage software resemble closely existing features of MeKin2D. To me this is a an indication that MeKin2D has gain notability! In addition we are dealing with a Streisand effect about Linkage's recent developments.

Dear Simiprof, I had never heard about this software until you linked to my page in an attempt to get me to vote to keep your Wikipedia page from being deleted. There are many features in many software packages that are the same. That does not make them notable. On Wikipedia, notability is determined by citations, not from being similar. for instance, I have a blue car and others have blue cars. That does not mean my blue car is notable, it means that some cars are blue. For the record, the only software package I consulted for idea for the Linkage software was Corel Draw and only to get idea on how to make it work like an illustration program, not a typical CAD program. I wish to be left out of your Wikipedia conflict. Feel free to delete or obfuscate and references to my software if you think that I am trying to gain notability through this conflict. - Rectorsquid (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that user:simiprof and user:pasimi are the same. Simiprof (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2607:FEA8:419F:F7F8:C96B:23A8:AD89:6219 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2607:FEA8:419F:F7F8:C96B:23A8:AD89:6219 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All "keep" opinions are by IPs or accounts blocked for socking. We need experienced contributor input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence in reliable sources that this software has been widely adopted. Two hits on Google Scholar, with one citation between them — that's simply not enough to go on. We cannot write articles without independent sources that indicate the significance of the subject matter. Those sources might well exist in the future, but they don't exist now. None of the paywalled references written by people other than Simionescu concern this software in particular. Contrast this situation with, for example, PyMC3, a scientific software package that was AfD'ed not too long ago. In that case, there were book chapters written about the software, and plenty of scientific papers that used it.
Moreover, the opening paragraph is a copyvio of [16]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear that this article is intended to help this software gain notability, not to reflect any existing notability. I have been working on software to do similar functions for the last 15 years and have researched what software already exists as a means of determining what is common in this area. I have never heard of or seen a reference to this software before being dragged into this conflict. Rectorsquid (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The King Cobra (2007 film)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG or NFO. I couldn't identify any third-party reliable sources that cover the subject. Paul_012 (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 20 January 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 and redirect to Bhutto family. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aseefa Bhutto Zardari[edit]

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

This bio was last year deleted via AfD but re-created. The notability of the subject is very similar to that of Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari - the latter is on the verge of deletion. The subject has not notability by its own, and sourcing is in passing and routine coverage, which means no in-depth coverage. The subject is not a elected politician thus fails WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't have a notable career either. Saqib (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails POLITICIAN. Quis separabit? 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quis separabit?, I am really not getting how the article fails POLITICIAN when the article's topic is not a politician. Thanks Ominictionary (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominictionary : "Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication" are quasi diplomatic posts but diplomacy and diplomats and politics are inherently and inseparably linked. But, frankly, I wasn't aware of [[WP:DIPLOMAT]] (I never used it before) and was using the other. Thanks to you. Quis separabit? 07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect: Before creating this article I had thought a lot about this article's notibility but after some research I thought that the article worths creating. She get notibility for her activism of Polio eradication. She has worked in United Nation also. There is a high possibility for her holding any goverment office which has been mentioned in the article with citation. So I think the article meets notibility and important to mention that this article is mostly based on secondary source and lastly, it doesn't matter the article meets WP:Politician or not because she is not a polititian but a health activist.Ominictionary (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First thing first, you didn't specify where to redirect this incase if it kept. Working for UN or any other top organisation doesn't makes one notable. Second thing, she doesn't hold any major public (or gov) office. --Saqib (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, Thanks for reminding me that I didn't mention about where it should redirected, maybe it could be redirected in Zardari family and secondly a question to you, is it necessary for a activist to hold a public office?? I am not getting why many are are treating her as politician when she is yet to be it??? She is an activist who has get signinificant coverage from secondary source and also has a possibility of holding a public office soon as genaral election in Pakistan is coming closer and I think she gets significent secondary coverage for her activism. So the article is worth to keep. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see her getting significant coverage, as you claim. She is only getting passing mentions in news releases and no-indepth coverage. Her social activism career is not notable as of now. You said "high possibility of holding a public office soon as genaral election in Pakistan is coming closer ". So my answer would be when and If she in future hold a public office, she would get a bio, but WP:NotJustYet. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib, I have also some doubt about her career's notibility that is why I suggested Redirect also. But I think she has got significiant coverage. I do beleive that the article's most of the reference are significiant and not passing except ref 1, 2, 5. Plz check the article refernce properly. Most of this coverage she got in her own right and some of them are depth coverage too. You could hold ref 4 as example. Thanks Ominictionary (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete positions are no where near enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- I don't think it would be proper to delete this article right now, when it has been confirmed that she will participate in this year election.[17] It is hard to think that she will not win this election. As PPP has a strong hold in Sindhi and she also carry "Bhutto" name. So, there is a high possibility that she will soon hold a public office. Now, if we delete this article now, there is a possibility that we need to make this again. That's why I will suggest again not to delete this article.Ominictionary (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I don't think this is a valid reason to keep this article for the very reason Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, general election are to be held in July 2018 - after half a year from now so no reason to hold this article and wait for her to win the election. In Fact there is no guarantee she will win. If and when she win, I assure you an article would be created in due time. Furthermore, please avoid repeating keep vote.--Saqib (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib, I am completely serious about my word. For ur kind information I had made a comment with a reason which I beleive to be valid for keeping this article and hadn't voted. As far as I know there is a WP:PRESERVE policy in wikipedia. In which basees wikipedia hadn't deleted Barron Trump's article entirely instead give a redirect. I think same applies here too. Thanks. Ominictionary (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect it to Bhutto family. Störm (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm:, then you should vote for redirect rather than delete and also important to mention that she is a member of Zardari family as Pakistan is a patriarch country. Ominictionary (talk) 16:52, 26 January 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! 08:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prapimporn Karnchanda[edit]

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

I could not identify any independent reliable source, in Thai or English, that provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Best I could find was her being nominated for a best stuntwoman award in 2011.[18] While the article creator has made effort to also create the relevant film articles for context, most of them hardly seem notable either. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity. I thought she was famous in Thailand (Polish: Nie ulega żadnej wątpliwości, że istnieje sterta źródeł po tajsku, pl:User Talk:The Polish#Tajskie pornoaktorki). And yet she has performed significant roles in other films, e.g. The Lady (2011 film), Boy Golden: Shoot to Kill, and BloodMonkey. Hence it follows that everybody wants to know smth about this exotic woman. It's very important, no doubt about it. If you delete our Pim in English, we'll translate her into other languages. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most reliable source: "a ray of light in the dark kingdom" (Nikolay Dobrolyubov). Do you know whom this phrase refers to? Prapimporn Karnchanda, of course. The watchers and critics are unanimous in the opinion that BloodMonkey is a rotten film. But Pim is the only delightful character in this tedious movie:

What you find the girl of Jungla Jean? It is stupendous. Definitively it is beautiful. (Bloodmonkey (2007) Movie Script 00:20:35 --> 00:20:40)

The Wikipedians in dewiki (plwiki etc.) share this appraisal and do not remove our "girl of Jungla Jean" from other Wikipedias. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: First and foremost, thanks for your information concerning Thai sources. It is a regrettable fact that my favourite character in the above-mentioned film is not a celebrity in Thailand. I do not have any problem with your proposed deletion if only because we have got 7 additional Prapimporns Karnchandas in other Wikipedias. To speak the truth, I'd like to have 10 Prapimporns at least. For "happiness is not in ~~money~~ beautiful women, but in ~~shopping~~ their amount" (Marilyn Monroe). But it isn't a problem. It's easy to increase the amount of Prapimporns Kanjundas in Wikipedia just as Carly Jepsen is the creator of numerous Angguns (als:Anggun, cs:Anggun, uz:Anggun etc.). We can follow Carly Jepsen's example and launch a new WikiProject, viz. "Kanjunda Translations." I've already explained (pl:User Talk:Warszawiak22#Egzotyka Wschodu) the reason for my creating WP articles about the actress under discussion. After I had finished watching BloodMonkey I wanted to learn something about the exotic actress playing the part of Chenne. For this purpose I addressed myself to the corresponding article in WP and was surprised at the fact that the Asian actress was not even mentioned there. This lack of information in Wikipedia compelled me to begin searching the Web. At last, I created a stub and expounded information obtained by me. Isn't it WP:AGF? I do not have any connections and interest to do any advertising. Besides, it makes no matter to me that my English Kanjunda has been proposed for deletion here. Enwiki is not the sole Wikipedia which our exotic "girl of Jungla Jean" can live in. We've already endowed her with multiple citizenship in several Wikipedias and nobody drives her away (in contrast to English Wikipedians). --Janggun Dungan (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nl:Prapimporn Karnchanda, a new item in our WikiProject "Kanjunda Translations", has already been approved by Dutch administrators (nl:Gebruiker:Tulp8 and nl:User:DirkVE). Now we are in a position to say that our new WikiProject can be divided into several sections:

Department of the Germanic languages:
1. Prapimporn Karnchanda (in English)
2. de:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in German)
3. nl:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in Dutch)
4. af:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in Afrikaans)
Finno-Ugric Department:
1. fi:Prapimporn Karnchanda (planned)
2. et:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in Estonian)

and so on.

The Department of Slavistics:
1. pl:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in Polish)
2. cs:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in Czech)
3. uk:Прапімпорн Карнчанда (in Ukrainian)

to be continued.

Department of Iranistics: zenana for two Prapimporns Kanjundas in Western Farsi a. Eastern Farsi respectively (because I had been a shah before I became a janggun)
Department of Turkology (planned): uz:Prapimporn Karnchanda (in Uzbek) etc. (because a wiki-friend of mine comes from Samarqand) No. Nothing of the sort. I've changed my mind. I don't think that a user from Samarqand fits in well with our WikiProject. Although the Uzbeks (like our "girl of Jungla Jean") are mongoloids WP:reliable sources witness that Thai women are fond of Caucasian men. This makes it obligatory for us to find a ~~jigit~~ ~~aqsaqal~~ Wikipedian who is 1) a Caucasian man and at the same time 2) a native speaker of a turkic language. For this reason the turkic section of our great WikiProject should be developed by Balkar Uzeyir from Kabardino-Balkaria. Hope our "girl of Jungla Jean" will be happy with an invitation to the North Caucasus.

We'll create these departments of our new WikiProject when we have time. We can also invent other departments, e.g. the Department of Indologie (id:Prapimporn Karnchanda). But the most interesting section of our brilliant WikiProject might be Prapimporn Karnchanda in the Amharic alphabet. Wikipedia:Be bold! In accordance with this rule, there will be a great deal (harem) of Prapimporns Karnchandas in Wikipedia with the consequence that it is too late to remove our exotic "girl of Jungla Jean" from our free (!) encyclopaedia. --Janggun Dungan (talk)`

Keep actress woth international notoriety from a series of major films. Plenty of coverage in Thai. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is patently false. As I stated in the nomination, there is zero coverage in Thai, save for that single non-notable award nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Leaning to delete Please keep in mind that per general notability guideline, this person still needs significant coverage to assume her notability. I don't agree with comments that she has plenty of coverage in Thai, because sources barely cover her biography and such. --Horus (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Horus: Judging from Paul_012's remarks, FloridaArmy is mistaken when he says: "Plenty of coverage in Thai." In addition, he uses a strange (strictly speaking, inappropriate) word, namely: "notoriety." But he's right in saying "(the woman's notability stems) from a series of major films." Prapimporn's significant roles in notable films (BloodMonkey a. "The Lady") are enough to establish her notability. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still confused? She might played in notable films, so what? This article is barely a biography, just a list of her work. You should better find the source covering about her life in detail, or I'm not convinced that she's notable. --Horus (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR as the roles are minor. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 26 January 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! 08:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submit Express[edit]

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

Don't see how this company can possibly be notable. Submit Express might have received some awards and press in the early 2000's but nothing recently. Is this company even still around? Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- currently A7 material; previously, WP:PROMO. Non notable & no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 21 January 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. Tone 17:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saberi Alam[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, WP:IMDB. -- HindWiki^Connect 04:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 18:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing indicates WP:NACTOR criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- more citations have been added and a quick google search will show more sources available to expand article and show that subject passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These references do not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. They demonstrate that the subject is an actor, but not that the subject is notable. Anyone with minimal exposure to the acting profession is likely to have at least this much coverage. Plus I note that the same article is listed several times but appearing differently, which is inappropriate.--Rpclod (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source, The Daily Star which is the largest circulated English language newspaper in Bangladesh, describes her as an accomplished actress and a charming TV show host. Does not seem like minimal exposure. The multiple citation to the same source was result of the article creator using a odd article name. English is not the actors native language and as a result more sources are available in Bengali languages. Try searching using সাবেরি আলম. An example1 of the sources available in Bengali which demonstrate notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It comes down to the question of significant coverage. The first two sources are the deepest. The remaining sources are not deep individually, but each contributes an important bit of encyclopedic information - a television program or film she was in, an award won. Reasonable people could argue it either way. Now she's often playing the mother in remakes of programs in which 25-35 years ago she played the love interest. Because the nomination appears to have been made in bad faith, and because the peak of her career was in pre-internet, non-English, third-world TV, for which sources are difficult to access, I'm inclined to cut the subject more slack than I might otherwise. Rpclod is correct that it isn't obvious whether her significant roles have been in notable television shows, but that probably says more about Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of Bangladeshi TV rather than about how much has been written about TV there. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:19, 22 January 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! 08:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Killa Chronicles[edit]

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

This album I'm uncertain on. While the sources in the page do show that the album was once named Shade of Black then Courtesy Curtis during development, I have not been able to access the myspace post that says the album was renamed to The Killa Chronicles. There is a possibility that the album was once again renamed to Crime Pays (Cam'ron album) but I can't find anything linking the two except for a YouTube video which I know is not reliable. Outside of the YouTube video, I have not found a reliable source that shows there is a Cam'ron album named The Killa Chronicles. So, should this article be merged and redirected to Crime Pays? Or should it be deleted?. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly describe elsewhere. Like the nominator, I see some confusing sources on this item's relationship to Crime Pays (Cam'ron album). That album's article can explain its development through different titles and false starts, if notable and backed up with reliable sources. Regardless, this item may not even exist and if it does, it has remained unreleased for 11 years. Does not qualify for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:17, 25 January 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. Tone 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modoka Studios Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Topic was deleted at AfD previously: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modoka. Author has continuously recreated the article different names Modoka and Modoka Studios without ever establishing notability. The article's references consist of a GameSpot database page with no information about the company, a GameFAQs page (unreliable source) and 2 primary sources directly from the company's website. A reliable video game web source search for ""Modoka Studios" yields a pitiful 10 results, none of which cover the company in any depth. The1337gamer (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the draft was moved to main by the author after an AfC submission was rightly declined due to lack of notability. I see no admissible coverage in independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: If the result is delete, can we also get rid of the redirect Modoka Studios? Rentier (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 of the 5 references point to the company's website, and the others are game reviews. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. And the redirect Modoka Studios as well. This company really is not notable, at all, there are a few mentions I see on the internet and what has been discussed above, but nothing in depth or substantial, therefore the article does not meet the policy requirements. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Modoka, Modoka Studios and Modoka Studios Entertainment as non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modoka Studios is currently a redirect to Video gaming in the Netherlands so it will need to go to RFD if you want that deleted.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not mentioned in the article so I don't see why the admin can't make a judgement call, IMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt - You could make an arguement that the "Saddies Attack!" game more notability than that of the article here, and that wouldn't beat an AfD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 24 January 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 Pakistan Media Awards. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistan Media Awards ceremonies[edit]

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

Not suitable for navigation purpose. No context, delete it per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The context is clear. Merge to parent article Pakistan Media Awards, no reason why this table can't be incorporated there. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per postdlf. samee ^talk 14:08, 24 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Louise Dean[edit]

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

Minor mentions are not enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tacyarg (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndyNotes (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - On top of the sources already in the article, death threats Dean received in 2015 which resulted in her fleeing Pakistan were very widely covered, see for instance here in Dawn. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ongoing major newspaper coverage over many years indicates notability. And her expulsion from Pakistan by religious extremists appears to have become something of a cause célèbre; see e.g. this mention of her in newspaper coverage of an unrelated conference in 2016 or this 2018 Brookings Institute book. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. There are multiple documents which state that she was the primary reviewer and textbook author on a revision to the national curriculum to remove hate speech and add gender diversity. Controversy erupted over her changes, which attempted to secularize the primary school textbooks and she was forced to leave the country.[19], IJT organizes APC over proposed changes in curriculum, [20], [21], [22] SusunW (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable for other reasons vs being an academic. The on-going coverage is significant, meeting WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 24 January 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. Tone 17:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Fahad[edit]

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

Un-necessary page with no such coverage in WP:RS. Only minor mentions. She haven't won any award yet. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Störm (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable person from Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree wih JPL. Boosterism now seems to be in full swing for just about every group. WP is drifting toward being a directory of humanity. Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. samee ^talk 13:52, 24 January 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. Tone 17:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Dowson[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL -- a person has to win election and thereby hold a notable office to get an article because politics per se -- but there's no strong or well-sourced claim of preexisting notability present here otherwise. The only sources are his own deadlinked website and the website of another directly affiliated organization (both primary sources that would be acceptable for verification of facts but not as support for a notability claim), and a namecheck of his existence in a book that isn't about him and is being cited only to support the fact that he was a closeted gay man. This was created in 2005, a time when our standards for notability and sourceability were much looser than they are now -- but under 2018 standards, he doesn't have a valid notability claim under any SNG, or solid enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dowson is not only an unsuccessful candidate, but a trounced one. When someone gets less than 300 votes to the winners 10,000+ votes, they are not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dowson's significance is not in being a political candidate but in being the leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement from the 1940s to 1970s and also due to the Dowson v RCMP court case. Nixon Now (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The leader of the entire Trotskyist movement? Not what the article says; it just ascribes him the leadership of one relatively minor Trotskyist group that's notable only as one of several forerunners of the merged League for Socialist Action, and wouldn't even independently pass WP:ORG in its own right for a separate article as a group. So no, we would need a lot more sourcing than this before we could deem him notable for that. And Dowson v RCMP might qualify for an article about the case, in the vein of Egan v Canada or Delgamuukw v British Columbia, but it's also not enough to earn him a standalone biography separate from that in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the entire Trotskyist movement, the entire Canadian Trotskyist movement. I've added sources, in any case, and will continue to do so. It would be helpful if you did so as well. Dowson's name comes up a lot in Google Books. Nixon Now (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two groups merged in 1960, the Socialist Education League and the Socialist Information Centre. If you read the Tate book (which does much more than a "name check" of Dowson), it's clear Dowson was considered the national leader even before the formal merger. In any case, Dowson was leader of the LSA from 1960 until 1974 so even if you want to quibble about the 1950s it is clear he was leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement in the 1960s. Nixon Now (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with references added, and because the subject was the leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement, which seems to me to be a reasonable claim to significance. In short, the article meets the policy requirements for inclusion Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent WP:HEY work by Nixon Now adding non-primary sources like The Globe and Mail. Persons don't have to win elections to pass our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:42, 22 January 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. Tone 17:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skooli[edit]

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

While there is some additional media coverage such as this, in total it's not enough to meet WP:CORP. The article itself is blatantly promotional and would need a thorough rewriting to become encyclopedic even if better sources could be found. Huon (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP & WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertorial-only content; basically spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Tacyarg (talk) 05:55, 25 January 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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vintoquián[edit]

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

It might be that there are sources in Chinese, but I could find zero coverage which even shows this person (or perhaps a character from folklore) existed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - as per sourcing for alternate name. Will move the article to the more appropriate title. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Lin Daoqian ^{(edited per below)} I appreciate the nominator does not speak Chinese, however even the Chinese Wikipedia article has four sources, and there are more available via Google. I will not go into detail because my Chinese is not good enough to do so. However this is enough to meet the requirements of WP:V and there is thus no deletion reason. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Lin Daoqian - I find few modern English references to Vintoquián (most use the form Vintoquian) in Google Books, there are however numerous reference to Lin Daoqian (a few to the Wade-Giles spelling of Lin Tao-ch'ien - [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] [28], [29], [30]. Vintoquian appears to be more favoured in older English and European (French and Spanish) sources - [31], [32], [33], but current usage would suggest that Lin Daoqian should be used. The lack of sources for Vintoquián appear to have led to a mistaken belief that there are few sources for the person and therefore not notable, when there are more sources under different names. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Lin Daoqian per Hzh. Vintoquián is an early Western corruption of Lin Daoqian. The old name has fallen out of usage in modern literature, but the subject is doubtless notable. See Google books results for Lin Daoqian. -Zanhe (talk) 19:17, 21 January 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! 08:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cranked Up Country Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show written in a promotional tone by a WP:SPS WP:COI account.

Also nominating for the same reasons:

Cranked Up Live Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, for the reasons stated above and also on the basis of notability. The show claims to be affiliated to a large number of stations. I don't know if this means the same thing as syndicated as per the notability criteria for radio shows but the linked sources do not mention it. I searched about half but could not find any mention of this show on their websites.Ther are no independent sources and this subject fails GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Cranked Up Live is a rock radio show that has now ended, but does not need to be removed from history due to that fact. Cranked Up Country is a current, syndicated radio show on FM, AM, and internet radio stations. KBIM 94.9 The Country Giant has the logo on their main page. BradleyH1 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: BradleyH1 is the creator of both articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:36, 24 January 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 and Move. Non-admin closure; innocent error about userspace naming convention. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utilisateur:Lewisiscrazy[edit]

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

The user has misunderstood how the different varieties of Wikipedia works, and probably in good faith created this "article" Dan Koehl (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians, Indeed, I have probably misunderstood something about the user pages. I have already a user page on the french side of wikipedia, and I was confused about why it is distinct from the page you want to delete. I did not know how to (or even whether I should) redirect. Sorry about the confusion. Lewisiscrazy (talk) 15:04, 20 January 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 (non-admin closure) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Castle, Maida Vale[edit]

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

NN pub. Fails GNG. A quick search didn't find significant sources outside of tourist and pub listing websites. There's passing mentions in a few books. Widefox; talk 14:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We have had this sort of AfD many times before. The relevant policy is WP:GEOFEAT, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT guideline has "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" . I didn't find any. (Grade II listed doesn't add up to much, which is the only source we have, II* or I is more like it). "Also, Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable" is also applicable. The G II listing is run-of-the-mill too. Is there a link for presumed notability of G II? and even then, if there's no sources and we only know it's build mid 1800 then WP:PERMASTUB and we may as well redirect to the list List of pubs in London. Widefox; talk 15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but with a GII listing it is "presumed to be notable". In any event, the article has now been expanded. Edwardx (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic building with lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 20 January 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! 08:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War characters[edit]

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

WP:GAMETRIVIA: completely unsourced, no information beyond rehashing of plot from characters' point of view, no creation, development or reception on any character. Suitable for a wiki, not Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. WP:NOR and gamecruft. Ajf773 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 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. Tone 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Figarova[edit]

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

no independent sources, no evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not create articles on Wikipedia based on an individuals personal website. Yet that is the only source here providing significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP from earlier WP days with inadequate sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 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. Tone 17:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three Point Capital[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH nothing of note added since it's last nomination for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received substantial coverage in reliable independent spirces for example Variety. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Variety is the only in depth coverage in a RS. The notability criteria require multiple sources. Did you find others? Domdeparis (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FloridaArmy, that Variety reference actually fails WP:RS since the journalist states he is merely repeating unattributed gossip - "Three Point Capital, which is providing debt financing for the boxing movie “Tiger,” is expanding by hiring Eric Fischer to open offices in Ohio and Kentucky, Variety has learned exclusively.". Leavng that aside, the reference relies entirely on quotations from an exec VP and the final paragraph is standard information and description provided by the company which can be also found in various forms in other announcements and even on their website. Reference fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sense of any improvement to notability since the last AfD. No evidence of notability. FailsWP:CORPDEPTH. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:TOOSOON; sources are routine, WP:SPIP, etc. Being on a list of "25 companies [you] should know" is not an indication of notability -- quite the opposite. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and others above. No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KSE BRIndex30[edit]

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

Local index for newspaper purposes. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 20 January 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. Tone 17:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claybourn – Claiborne – Clayborn family[edit]

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

No evidence of notably, a pure vanity page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage indicating notability - all links are to Claybourn Genealogical Society. Tacyarg (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite claims in the article I am less than convinced of a unified geneology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 21 January 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! 08:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Hunter[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG or NFO. I couldn't identify any third-party reliable sources that cover the subject. Paul_012 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: are you sure? Do you know the Thai language? It is up to Paul_012 to decide because he (unlike us) understands not only English sources but also Thai ones. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 20 January 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! 08:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Mag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, minimal sourcing. First AFD was from 2008, second was from September and closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs updating, but there were numerous sources provided in the first deletion nomination (many unfortunately now suffering from linkrot), and seems a notable magazine of its time. Greenman (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as substantially covered in reliable independent sources which notes its significance. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:47, 20 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chelito Omar[edit]

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

Contest dePROD: I did not see any evidence that the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Pinging PROD nominator Galobtter. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even assuming he played in Mocambola, it is not a fully professional league. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, and so does not meet the notability criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 22 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavini Purohit[edit]

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

The article topic is not notable, it is completely based on gossip column ABCDE22 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 13 January 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 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of reliable sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails [WP:NACTOR] as the individual has only one credit and that too in a non notable film. Hagennos (talk) 03:21, 22 January 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! 08:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Asi[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS nor in his career. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- An output of 30 books is significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheer number of books does not notability make. We have deleted articles on people who wrote 100 books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1dd no indication that hte books are significant. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 22 January 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! 08:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Social Services[edit]

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

Promotional with WP:COI. Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The social services programme of a major denomination, even in a Muslim majority country should be reliable. If a source was a RS when the article was created or edited, it does not cease to be one because it has become a deadlink, perhaps due to having migrated to a new web-host. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: There is a single name-check at the end of this article from DAWN. Other sources like UCA are online Catholic website in Asia. Störm (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see UCA website here. Störm (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is fine (UCA is a reliable source for the purposes of notability and verification), the issue is that it's actually coverage about the diocese and not the group: this appears to be a diocesan level charity, not a national one from what I can tell. I'd be happy to change my !vote if someone point out to me otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for letting me down. I'll take care next time. Störm (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well established organisation and covered in books which can be used to expand the article, see for instance "Catholic+Social+Services"+Pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVh-mTtOXYAhUEyLwKHffIAGAQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22Catholic%20Social%20Services%22%20Pakistan&f=false "Catholic+Social+Services"+Pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVh-mTtOXYAhUEyLwKHffIAGAQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=%22Catholic%20Social%20Services%22%20Pakistan&f=false "Catholic+Social+Services"+Pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVh-mTtOXYAhUEyLwKHffIAGAQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=%22Catholic%20Social%20Services%22%20Pakistan&f=false Mar4d (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. local organization with no national significance. The references are either mentions, are incidental short case studies within a general article DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 22 January 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! 08:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milk soy protein intolerance[edit]

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

This article is a stub. The only citations appear to be to an unpublished thesis dissertation (by KJ Wade), with a link that no longer functions, and a very general description of allergy symptoms that does not specifically address cross-reactivity between milk allergy and soy allergy. I will say in fairness that this article does garner about 400 views a month, and that an internet search on the title yields numerous website presentations/discussions on milk soy protein intolerance, abbreviated as MSPI. A better article would get rid of the food lists and the symptom lists and focus on evidence for prevalence of dual allergy, and whether that is based on cross-reactivity of milk and soy proteins. However, I did not find MEDRS quality research on either of these avenues. Kattan JD (2011) PMID 21453810 is the best possible citation. As an alternative I have added content to Milk allergy and to Soy allergy, touching on the evidence for cross-reactivity, citing Kattan. Can this article become a redirect? David notMD (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milk allergy#Cross-reactivity with soy.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (1) The citation to the dissertation would still be valid without the link; it can always be cited as a printed document, so the link is just for convenience. (2) If kept, the article ought to be renamed; I figured it was talking about intolerance of protein in soy milk, not intolerance of protein in milk and in soy products. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I am comfortable with this becoming a redirect to the section within the Milk allergy article that deals with cross-reactivity to soy. In answer to Nyttend's comment - No, the concept really is that people, especially infants and young children, who manifest an allergy to milk will also be allergic to soy. Kattan estimated 2-3% of infants will have cow's milk allergy and 10% of those also soy. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is it intolerance of "milk soy" protein? Or is it intolerance of milk protein and of soy protein? Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. "Soy milk" is a soy product which contains no cow's milk. People can have allergic responses to that. But the article in question is about being allergic to cow's milk proteins AND soy proteins. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. If kept, the article ought to be renamed, because it looks like it's talking about intolerance of "milk soy" protein. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Milk allergy#Cross-reactivity with soy? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Nyttend: I suppose "Milk and soy protein intolerance" would be clearer and still be the acronym MSPI, but internet searches find many users of "Milk soy protein intolerance" and none of those are about soy milk protein intolerance. The "and" is understood. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a decision to delete, then a disambiguation at MSPI needs to be removed, too. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced. You can be allergic / intolerant to anything. We do not need an article on all allergies. Redirect to food intolerance Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 27 January 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! 08:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Induction motors modelling in ABC frame of reference[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Looks like partial course notes for a lecture, but is a meaningless typesetting exercise, not an explanation of its putative topic. Original contributor hasn't been seen since creating this in 2013. Wikipedia is not a textbook and it's not clear the treatment of the subjects started here could ever be completed as a reasonable encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Induction motors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how merging this into Induction motors is practical. The level of detail here is way beyond what that article contains; anything here would be totally out of place. And, it would take a serious subject matter expert to do anything useful. I have a background in electrical engineering; I get the gist of what this is talking about, but the details of the math are way beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 28 January 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! 08:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W Project[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:NMG as is an article entirely about a trainee project with no notability. Abdotorg (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards keep) I can't read Korean (I'm relying on Google Translate here), but this looks like a WP:GNG pass: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Adam9007 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , probably speedy delete. Nusic project that never produced a significant recording. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 January 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. Michig (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tabori[edit]

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

There is some notability, but in overall I didn't find too much support for the claim Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tabori was one of the architecturally well known group working in Camden 1950s to 1970s - internationally reported for the high-density low-rise estates. I would urge retention! — Saltmarsh ^talk 19:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to agree with you, but where are the sources that support it? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well — I have added another reference which I hope supplies enough to retain this stub. I'm not an architectural historian, we might hope that some more knowledgeable editors might expand it and add articles relating to Camden's departure from the high-rise estates of the early 60s. — Saltmarsh ^talk 12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need not know anything about the architecture of Camden, although it helps a bit. It's all about searching and assessing sources. I found 4 below.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see lots of sources in a search. They are not perfect, but there are perhaps enough of them. He is mentioned a lot as a modernist architect who helped form Camden's architectural "look". I think he just squeaks by. He's part of the architectural vernacular in that geographic area now.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 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! 08:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament in Silesian[edit]

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

The article is based only on self published source and I didn't find any news not related to publisher itself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this translation is available for purchase, circulating among Silesian-speakers and used for prayer and devotional reading. Do you suggest that this book does not exist? Hyrdlak (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

I added 5 references to press articles and a youtube film devoted to this translation. Is it sufficient? There are many more pieces of news on this translation easily available online. Next time, when proposing to delete an article, please, check up the facts, instead of just saying 'I didn't find any news not related to publisher itself'. Hyrdlak (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is about a specific self-published translation from 2017, not about the general concept of translations of the Bible into a Silesian language. The references (both in the article and that I could find on Google search) are mostly announcements of the pre-sale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose to Bible translations in Silesian -- we do not have an article. It appears this might be the only actual translation--there is also an adaptation [[34]]. This seems a little unsual to me, and would need confirmation, but , acording to our article on the Silesian language, the usual liturgical language there is Polish DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 23 January 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) 13:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RentHop[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Article sources to routine finding news, passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability.

The one source that may look impressive (The New York Times) is based on an interview surrounding launch publicity, as in: "'This is one of the best times to be launching this site,” Mr. Lin said. “Renters know this is a renter’s market (...). So the stars have aligned for this to take off.' " The article also includes: "Whether RentHop is a workable business remains to be seen" suggesting it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry; the company has not achieved anything significant just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a highly promotional article with insufficient reliable sources and no redeeming value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentError (talk • contribs) 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The NYT article is good evidence to show that it is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 22 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creaform (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable tech company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as the article suffers from a lack of in-depth coverage. The article's sources are limited to trivial mentions or to press releases concerning business. Does the company produce products? Yes. Does this equate to encyclopedic value when considering What Wikipedia is not? No. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a Ametek subsidiary, sourced to routine announcements about factory, product and business acquisition. I am seeing nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability in its own right. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The related Creaform_(disambiguation) can be redirected to Ametek but is it needed - I am not finding a distinct German GIS firm, only Creaform GmbH, a hotel furniture firm of that name? AllyD (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a Montreal Gazette reference ([35]) about the early days of the company and a Le Journal de Montréal reference about the AMTEK acquisition ([36]). Of the other sources in the article, the TCT Mag one appears to be reliable+in-depth. Le Soleil is a major daily newspaper, and the article is focused on Creaform. The 3DPrinting Industry pieces appear to be reliable, and not just routine. The 3DPrint.com source seems OK too. I'm not sure about the other sources, some of them might be press releases. Coverage in three daily papers + a bunch of specialty trade publications should be enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. - Mparrault (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another La Soleil article, here is a Globe and Mail article, here is a Le Journal de Québec piece, here is an almost trivial mention (but still with useful info) in the National Post. - Mparrault (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References that are extensively based and rely on interviews with company officers, press releases, company announcements, etc, without intellectually independent analysis and/or opinion fail the criteria for establishing notability. The references that I can find fail the criteria. For example, Mparrault above says that the TCT Mag reference appears to be reliable+in-depth - sure, but its based on a company press release and contains no additional data/information or intellectually independent analysis or opinion. "Coverage" in reliable sources is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The coverage must be intellectually independent - otherwise all we're really doing is acknowledging that the company has a functioning marketing department and/or lazy churnalism. Topic fails GNG, references fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, the strongest references are the ones in the daily newspapers, none of which you discussed. WP:ORGIND is about whether the source is independent of the company - content does not need to be "intellectually independent", and there is no mention that analysis is needed. Not all of the daily newspaper articles are just re-released press releases. -Mparrault (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mparrault I'll explain. I didn't discuss the newspaper references because they are clearly based on company announcements and interviews and therefore fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Contrary to what you say, sources to meet the criteria for notability must be intellectually independent and references that are extensively based on company announcements or other PRIMARY material fail those criteria. "Independent sources" does not simply mean sources that are independent at a corporate level in that the publisher is not dependent on the company, it goes further to mean sources that are not influenced by the company and that the article is not simply regurgitating company blurb. Some articles might paraphrase the announcement but without independent analysis or opinion are still considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability. "Intellectually independent" simply incorporates that idea. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND specifically deal with those issues. I have looked at the newspaper articles and they are based on company announcements and interviews and therefore extensively rely on PRIMARY sources. If you like, post the specific link to article below here that you believe meet the criteria and I will provide you with a detailed explanation (based on my opinon) for each. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the better sources:

1. [37] A Montreal Gazette article in considerable depth about the company. Definitely a very positive article, although the article does note that "the partners were finding it difficult to pierce the lucrative U.S. market". There are a lot of quotes from the company CEO, but there is also a lot of other content too. and it is not written by the company.

2. [38] An in-depth Globe and Mail article about Creaform's Indian operations. Again, very positive, but not written by the company directly or indirectly.

3. [39] An article in The Engineer, a 162-year old trade magazine, in some depth, not based on a press release. Generally positive, but not entirely so (e.g. "For a fledgling business to invest heavily in such a new technology was a gamble but it turned out to be an inspired decision")

4. [40] A Journal de Montreal article about Creaform's sale to AMETEK. Rather short, with many details not in the relevant press release announcing the transaction. There are a number of other stories also about this acquisition, with similar but not identical content (e.g. [41])

5. [42] A La Soleil article about Creaform acquiring Gencad. Fairly short, but does not appear to be based on a press release (this press release does not have many of the details in the article)

In my opinion, 1, 2, 3 easily pass WP:ORGIND. 5 and 6 might be considered "substantially based on a press release", although there is content there not in the relevant press releases. Some of the other sources might be OK too. -Mparrault (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a corporate brochure on a non notable company, detailing its "Corporate structure" and "Products and services". Wikipedia is not a catalog of nn business or a free means of promotion. The sources above are local, not meeting WP:AUD, or routine corporate news, not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Does one of them call the company a "fledgling business"? This screams WP:TOOSOON, i.e. the company is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatch (startup)[edit]

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

This company appears to be defunct, but its demise was not notable enough to get press coverage. The sourcing is largely PR about funding and corporate renames, rather than being about their product. The funding wasn't significant enough to suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was a good ride, now let's switch off the light. Natural conclusion for a COI spam article based solely on hype. Rentier (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Cardeña[edit]

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

No sourcing found. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly written, however I saw many sources when searching for sources. Several were profiles, like this one and this one. The article does need extensive cleanup, but it's not enough to merit deletion.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this stuff never come up when I google things? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage found to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think this artist is notable, however the article needs to be rewritten by someone with good English. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the nominator, sourcing has been found. Meets WP:ARTIST. References added to article, too!

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

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

The result was delete. Its sources that win an argument and this clearly is not met so the policy based argument is delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Gregory[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth, non-trivial sourcing to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The state of the article is not a sign of the subject's notability (see WP:ARTN). The subject is the the co-author of two books (ISBN 0321534468 and ISBN 0321967054), a lecturer in software testing and development, and has published many articles. She easily meets WP:AUTHOR no. 1, 2 and 3. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has been improved and secondary sources now support what I claimed, vis, that she is "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert". Once again this is a case of an AfD being done based on the state of the article, which I stated was against WP:N, and the nom did not perform WP:BEFORE, and at least two of those discussing the subject did not bother to investigate whether the subject was or was not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a curious stement to make. Do you have evidence to back up your assertions about what people did or did not do to investigate notability? I would assume that given WP:AGF, evidence would be required to make such an assertion. If you are including me in this veiled comment, that I can reassure you that you are wholly wrong. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None other than that they did not find the evidence that is obvious by searching. I'm sorry you think I'm wholly wrong. What did you do try to to prove that Gregory fails any notability criteria? You responded to my statement that she co-authored two books. You clearly didn't find the content that was added to the article. I was about to add similar, but only had time to comment when I responded here. People not doing BEFORE is becoming a greater problem with AfDs. When the nominators make statements like "non-trivial sourcing to support inclusion" it's clear they're basing the AfD on the contents of the article, not a search. So, sorry if I have tainted your character by claiming you didn't search for sources. Feel free to clear your name by indicating the searches you did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology reluctantly accepted. This is no beauty contest, I don't have to prove anything and I am perfectly content that both my name and reputation are unaffected by this slightly weird discussion. I do however, have concerns about what might, to an uninvolved observer, seem like the application of undue pressure through malformed arguments. I will assume good faith and premptively accept that you have no other vested interest here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what people will think about your malformed arguments. Perhaps any uninvloved observers can let one of us know. I'd be happy to clear the air for them. Seriously though Velella, I don't believe you. A assume good faith, but when you can't find sources that are clearly present, and you won't explain how you missed them, I can only concluded that you didn't bother to look in the same place that other editors who found those references found them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I supported prodding and AfD, prior to recent expansion (see this version [43]). Notwithstanding the subject's place in the agile testing community, I'm still dubious, especially given the lack of significant in-depth coverage about her. Many of the sources offered are press releases and announcements of lectures and seminars [44], [45], [46]. A separate concern is the increasingly promotional tone the article has taken during its expansion--the article's creator hasn't responded to questions about conflict of interest. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - co-authoring two books does NOT meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and having struggled through the mass of references, I have to agree with the analysis of the firts IP written comment. The style of writing and the organisation of the article also makes it very difficult to be clear where notabilituy is supposed to lie. I don't believe that this is worth saving and WP:TNT is, I believe the best approach on the off chance that some other editor may make a more cogent and convincing article at a later date. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was started as Janet Gregory is considered by many to be notable as a coach/trainer/speaker on Agile software development and testing. In addition to having co-authored two important books on agile software testing, she has authored several articles, worked with other notable agile software development figures like Robert C. Martin,Ron Jeffries and Kevlin Henney (who all have Wikipedia articles) and is a keynote speaker at many well known Agile and Testing conferences around the world. I've added some external links to interviewsUser:Mlvandijk
- Of Robert C. Martin,Ron Jeffries and Kevlin Henney, at least two could use a lot better sourcing or they, too, merit a closer look. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I get that. But please could someone constructively explain how to show notability without being considered an 'advert'. Am really just trying to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlvandijk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Get away from it. This is an excellent example of an article created by a new user, who notwithstanding your denial, appears to have some sort of association with the subject. Uninvolved parties don't usually create this kind of article, nor have so much interest invested in their outcome. If the article is kept, a thorough copy edit will remove the bulk of it for unacceptable sources and promotional tone. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - And anon editors don't act the way you do. What are you hiding? There is not one milligram of promotional tone that I see in it simply innuendo. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Walter Görlitz, a bit of AGF please--don't do the "hiding" thing; it's the kind of low blow that backfires. This is an AfD and spirited discussions are fine, but really. (The IP editor has nothing to hide but their identity; their long career of edits here speak to their character and love for the project well enough.) Mlvandijk, I haven't looked at the article yet but I want to tell you that someone being interviewed does not notability make ("Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is a kind of original research); secondary sources do that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the reminder. Here's one for you @Drmies: Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is essentially what WP:GNG says. Specifically, if the topic is directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Granted, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so if it's a one-column interview, it doesn't help to meet GNG. If that interview was the only thing the subject had going, then that too would not help the subject to meet GNG. However, it's another point toward meeting GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not with you on that. Certainly an interview provides a good reason for looking more carefully, but interviews aren't in the GNG for good reasons, I think. If an interview comes with coverage (discussion), that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Multiple interviews in several different Software testing publications. I've also added source for the 13 "Women of Influence" article.Mlvandijk Mlvandijk (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough work or coverage to meet the notability requirements for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an advert, and I may yet tag it as such. It's also a lack of good faith to accuse editors of hastily bringing this to AfD, when the sources are pretty uniformly awful. I've stated as much, but to focus on the pivotal claims, "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert", here are the references: [47] and [48]; a press release with the phrase "Janet's programming background is a definite plus," and a blog. If that's the best we can find,
Delete. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: See also this draft for related issues [49]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would have considered speedy deleting this as it was clearly intended to be promotional, but in view of the fact that a lot of work has been done to find sources, I'm content to let it remain, subject to cleanup. Deb (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quotes supporting notability, like a major contributor to the North American agile testing community seem to come from websites. Her books do not seem to be widely-held, e.g. the More Agile Testing is ~100 (WorldCat). Seems to have been written by a SPA, who is trying to promote Gregory and her authorship partner Lisa Crispin. Agricola44 (talk)
Keep. I frequently hear references to Gregory's first book in the industry and I'd like for us to have a chance to find good published references that reflect this. Faught (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I frequently hear references is not a rationale for keeping an article, nor is it acceptable as evidence of notability. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Two comments, it actually is a valid argument as the editor in question is a contributor to several software testing discussion groups. In specific, subjects such as Cem Kaner, James Bach and other important writers in the software testing world reference her work in their own publications, and certainly in these discussion groups. However, those discussion groups do not meet RS so I can see why they were not provided. However, she is a recognized expert. This is also the point being made by The second comment is who is this anon and what cards does the anon have that they are not willing to share by remaining anonymous? And that was assuming good faith about the editor. I don't really see why an editor in Old Lyme, Connecticut who is as prolific as this editor needs to remain anonymous other than a few. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles on Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin were started as their book "Agile Testing" is mentioned under Further reading on the Agile testing page but neither author had an entry on Wikipedia. Before starting the articles notability criteria were reviewed and concluded they were eligable: 1. their identities are verified on VIAF/Library of Congress/etc (see wikidata) 2. They have written books and multiple articles, either together, separately, and/or with other people in the industry with several different publishing houses / industry magazines, which provides multiple reliable sources. In addition, they are frequent keynote speakers at industry conferences. Reliable source of this are publications by Springer on XP Universe conferences which includes the.

There is no conflict of interest: I do not know either author personally or professionally, am not getting paid to write this (did spend a lot of spare time trying to improve the article; which is why I'd hate to see it deleted), nor does my employer have any link to subjects of articles (we sell their book, along with millions of other products). Unreliable sources have been removed and "promotional" content has been removed/rewritten (with help of others on this page: Thank you!). Interviews have been added as source (but content of interviews has not been added to page) If I find additional reliable sources, they will be listed here/added to wikidata rather than added directly to the article. For instance:

The "Agile testing" book is cited in other publications (see google books among others) - for instance in "Developer testing" </ref>^[1]
The "Agile testing" book is used by ISTQB^[2]

Mlvandijk

Comment. I'm not so much concerned about COI here as the lack of demonstrated notability. For example, Walter Görlitz has answered criticism of testimonial with more testimonial and Mlvandijk observes the Agile Testing book is used and cited, which is true of the "average book". So far, most of the "keep" reasoning seems to be subjective. We do have more quantitative and objective conventions for cases like this, which is how often publications/books are cited, how many libraries hold copies, etc. I looked again and WorldCat shows 261 holdings for the Agile Testing book, which will be a decade old next year. This would be a good statistic for an esoteric/obscure area, but for a very popular, high-visibility topic like programming, it seems pretty average. (For reference, lots of other books in the very same area show double these numbers, e.g. Watkins' agile testing book at >500 or Lewis et al. testing at ~500.) I'm certainly not saying Gregory hasn't contributed, but, in the end, we seem to have websites selling her products and blogs that call her a major contributor to the North American agile testing community and an industry expert rather than authoritative RS and/or quantitative metrics saying these things. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agricola44, in "So far, most of the "keep" reasoning seems to be subjective" I would replace "subjective" with "unproven", maybe. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I think that the "unproven" nature comes through better in the last sentence of my soliloquy. Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Agricola44, are these authors also frequent keynote speakers at Agile / software testing conference? Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.Mlvandijk (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking at a conference is completely irrelevant to an AfD like this because it is part and parcel of what they all do. It doesn't distinguish her in any way. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Trevino[edit]

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

Subject fails NATHLETE as a sports promoter. Subject fails GNG - no RS in article and a BEFORE search only finds articles in reference to her recent, failed candidacy to the Fort Worth city council (and it's not even clear if it's the same Jennifer Trevino). Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is either her promoting her events or consists of passing mentions. There's nothing to show that WP:GNG, or any other notability criteria, is met. Claims like she "will be the first female to host an Amateur MMA event in San Antonio" are both unsourced and fail to show notability even if true. Papaursa (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAOZ[edit]

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

Article on a small, Icelandic animation company which has produced two small features and three shorts. One reference which is of questionable RS. A BEFORE search fails to identify anything further. Article has had an unresolved notability tag on it for the last seven years. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 20 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homo sapiens (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe, no sources whatsoever. No evidence that any of this has any notability out-of-universe. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the entire article is sourced only to a Marvel comic, and I don't think independent reliable sources can be found to support the article. If I removed the unsourced information the article would be completely blank. And we have an article about real Humans already. Also Marvel Wikia has an article that looks very similar. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources out there which cover this stuff, including the following. Imperfect articles are welcome and AfD is still not cleanup.

Marvel Encyclopedia
Marvel Universe
The Marvel X-Men Guide Book
Marvel Comics: The Untold Story
Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels
The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe
Marvel Comics in the 1960s
The Marvel Legacy of Jack Kirby
Marvel Comics In The 1980s
Comic Books: How the Industry Works

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs)

Yes I understand, but do you have any of those sources to confirm they are relevant, and if so do any of them have information on Homo Sapiens (as defined my Marvel) that could be used here? I know lots of reliable sources cover the 'Marvel Universe' but as far as I know they are mostly focused on the characters and specific commentary on the best story arcs. I know this article accurately represents what is in the comics, but can that be verified as required by Wikipedia policy? If so I will change my recommendation. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all relevant. For example, they say things like "The Atlanteans are a genetic offshoot of mainstream Homo sapiens called Homo mermanus, who ..."; "it was revealed that the Inhumans were descended from the apelike species that would evolve into Homo sapiens..."; "the depiction of anti-mutant hysteria among homo-sapiens in the Marvel Universe was reaching..."; "her powers reorder the universe into a world where homo-superiors reign over homo-sapiens". As mutants and rival strains of humanity are a significant theme in Marvel titles like X-Men and Inhumans, you'd expect such compendious works to cover this topic and so they do. Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced, unless there is an actual section focused on this subject in one of these works, I can't see how it has wider relevance. Also the more detailed Marvel Wikia already has this article so it's not like it's being lost. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is fancruft in-universe unreferenced essay, it adds no encyclopedic value to Wikipedia, and adding a list of sources of general publications about Marvel Comics has absolutely no relevance to the precise subject matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TRM.No out of universe notability.Winged Blades^Godric 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of this information is already at Marvel Universe, which has more sources (all still primary) for the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources will be primary and seem to be describing distinct units. This seems to be case where the individual elements may be notable, but don't seem to be as a collective. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)--Killer Moff (talk) 14:56, 22 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Goldman[edit]

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

He may possibly be notable, but this is a advertisement full of puffery. Rating in lists are put in the lead, Oxford University where he attended but did not take a degree much less prestigious school from which he actually graduated. Basic bio details like dates and place of birth are ignored,. Most of the article describes his firm, which has a separate article that would do well enough just to link to, . Enthusiastic "reviews" are taken from blogs, not reliable sources. The preface to the book itself is quoted to say how good it is.

I tried for a hour or two last night to fix it. It isn';t--there would be no content left. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere PROMO lacking WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 20 January 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 City of Chino Hills. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Chino Hills, California)[edit]

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

Looks like a nice little park, but just not notable. Other than the city website, no sources. A ***WP:BEFORE*** search came up with absolutely nothing that establishes notability. Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to City of Chino Hills.FloridaArmy (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chino Hills, California, which presently has no mention. This will improve this suggested merge target article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep argument don't put forward a policy basis Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professional consensus of economics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Why isn't Medical consensus a list of things all doctors agree on? Why isn't Scientific consensus a list of all the scientific facts that a have universal consensus? We have no article listing everything physicists mostly all agree on. No article on historical consensus. Yet when it comes to this one field, the dismal science, there is a need for an article touting a handful of highly political, divisive hot-button issues that supposedly, economists "all" agree on. This entire concept stinks: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. It is not "normal". No other field has this defensive need to tout such a list of consensus positions.

The reason is that politics and economics are inseparable, and every bit of this is highly controversial. Any claim that any economics question is settled and resolved is shameless propaganda. Various assertions in this article can be moved to whatever article they might be relevant to, if they haven't already, but what we have here is a WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speculative and highly inaccurate cherry-picked WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:OPINION WP:ESSAY. No place for this ruminative dissertation on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research/synthesis. Not all economists agree on the issues cited. A quick Google Scholar search can confirm this. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although superficially garnished with many sources, this is classic synthesis and original research with arbitrary percentages from nowhere –Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - there is material of value there, even in it's current form, in particaulr the bits you lot don't like William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every original research of course has a value. But Wikipedia don't host original reaserch or pseudo-research (i.e synthesis of what secondary sources didn't say). –Ammarpad (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Possibly rename economic consensus: clearly a subject that should be covered by Wikipedia even if the current article is a long way off featured article status. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be specific as to what this content would be? If it's just another list of "things the other side is wrong about" then it's not encyclopedic. What else would there be? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, you being the original claimant, the onus is on you: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. Can you be specific as to what this POV is? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- no, it should not be covered by Wikipedia because it is original research. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:06, 27 January 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 Heriot-Watt University. While I might wish for a bit more explicit consensus on the merge target there appears to be a solid consensus favoring a merge and the only target mention is Heriot-Watt University. Also a quick reminder that only material that is properly sourced or completely uncontroversial should be merged per WP:V and WP:CITE. It's time to close this and move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masters in Strategic Project Management (European)[edit]

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

The program does not establish why it itself is notable separately from the universities that are offering it (e.g. we do not have a have an article about a Harvard MBA specifically, rather an article about the degree generally and then one about Harvard Business School). The given sources appear to largely target the universities themselves and those that discuss the program are written by a professor at one of the schools that issues the degree or are just program rankings. Mifter (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally merge the what notable information exists into the parent university articles until such time as the degree program establishes it itself is notable outside just its parent organizations (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mifter (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Mifter. We have articles on courses like Master of Business Administration, M. Tech Clinical engineering, Bachelor of Science in Information Technology and so forth. Why do you think this is different from these? This course too is offered by multiple institutions, and has been structured under the EU's higher education initiative. Lourdes 15:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes, as I mentioned in the nom I believe this is different because something like a Master of Business Administration (MBA) as a degree program is independently notable with the degree itself getting high levels of coverage in reliable third party sources and is offered by a very large number (hundreds) of universities whereas this program is only offered by this single consortium of universities (that I can see) and it is a single, unique program (If any university creates a unique new degree program independently or as part of a consortium it does not automatically deserve an article until that degree program is itself sufficiently notable.). If any part of the degree program is notable I would argue it should be merged into the articles for the university's offering it until there is sufficient coverage to establish that this unique program is independently notable. Similarly a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology is also offered widely, though our article on it could use work and it needs more sources. Finally, after looking at the linked article, I would argue that M. Tech Clinical engineering might suffer from the same issues that this article does as it is appears to be a unique program offered by a single consortium but I am still looking at it. In sum, something like a MBA as a degree program independently passes our GNG due to its heavy coverage as a general degree while this degree program with its primary distinguishing factor being that it is offered by a consortium of universities does not appear to satisfy notability just as a degree program. Mifter (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand your viewpoint. I would have preferred that before this Afd, a merge discussion could have been initiated on the article's talk page as an alternative to deletion. But now that this is here, in my opinion, as the EU has withdrawn its support to the program (www.mspme.org) and as the actual MSPME degree is offered by only Heriot-Watt University, we could Merge the main contents to the HW Univ page. If you agree, you could consider withdrawing this nom and we could both then be bold and start a discussion on the article's talk page to merge the article, and finish it up boldly post consensus. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes 21:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes, I just saw this note and agree that a merger would likely be the best outcome. I'd like to think about how to best proceed for a short while and will followup soon after giving it some thought. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Mifter. There are other pages with erasmus mundus programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Master_of_Science_in_Rural_Development Additionally, these programs are part of the education in europe and they act as an independent organization e.g. There is a Stanford Online page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Online The program runs now in multiple versions; one version Heriot-Watt & Umea and second version Politecnico and Glasgow Nkalyvio —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nkalyvio. Thank you for the links and information and welcome to Wikipedia! After looking at them though, I am not sure how they are directly relevant to this article's notability. That we have other articles that may be similar does not establish why this specific degree program is sufficiently notable to have its own article as notability is determined on a case-by-case basis and is not inherited. Further, Stanford Online is not a degree program, it appears to be an online version of the University and International Master of Science in Rural Development does not cite any sources and itself may not be notable enough for inclusion though that is beyond the scope of the discussion here. I'd be happy to discuss further should you have any questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Mifter. Just wanted to leave a gentle reminder ping to consider the Merge suggestion I had given above, to enable this Afd to reach a consensus (or get re-listed again, if you don't agree). Warmly, Lourdes 12:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes. Thanks for the note, I was out and didn't have a chance to check in on Wikipedia for a few days. I'm happy to merge the article (in fact it would be my preferred outcome as I mention above), but am wondering your thoughts about how we should proceed. We could let the AfD run its course and have an uninvolved admin/editor close it as merge, have someone close it now as merge, or withdraw and open another discussion to discuss the merger. I believe the third option would be redundant considering we appear to have an emerging consensus here towards merge and would be fine with the other options. Also, if you see another path forward, I'm happy to hear it, my goal is to resolve this as smoothly as possible while trying to avoid being overly bureaucratic. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mifter. We'll let the Afd proceed and once this closes (hopefully as a merge result), we can then proceed to the respective articles and conduct the actual merge. Lourdes 01:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per developing consensus not yet expressed. The AFD has started so why not just formalize a "merge" consensus? Otr500 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge following the consensus rationale emerging above: Best to conclude this AfD and allow the merger proposal to be carried through. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator Comment There appears to be a consensus favoring some sort of merge. However I am not altogether clear as to what article(s) are to be on the receiving end of the merge. Once that is settled I will be happy close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ad Orientem, I understand what you're saying. My proposal was to merge this to Heriot-Watt University. I presume that Mifter, Otr500, and AllyD are referring to the same article. Thanks, Lourdes 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If merged to Heriot-Watt University there needs to be at least on source tying (connecting) the two together. Otr500 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few Otr500. If you check the article, you'll find sources like this. The main University source also gives good details. As I have already mentioned above in my reply to Mifter, it seems that the European sponsorship has come to an end, which is confirmed by the primary website http://www.mspme.org/, which also mentions that it's only the Heriot-Watt university which gives a new renamed "Master of Science in Strategic Project Management" certification from hereon. Thanks, Lourdes 05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see there are primary sources and my comments were "just" that merging to "Heriot-Watt University" should be sourced in that article as the entire Programme structure section, that already includes 'Master of Science in Strategic Project Management", is currently unsourced. Otr500 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I agree. Lourdes 12:30, 21 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYFU[edit]

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

Non-notable Philippines college radio station. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All licensed radio and TV stations are notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's true that NMEDIA accepts duly licensed radio stations as notable, what we don't have in this article is properly sourced verification that this station is properly licensed. We don't extend that presumption of notability just because a radio station is nominally verifiable as existing, because pirate radio stations and unlicensed Part 15 and carrier current and closed circuit radio stations exist too — the presumption of notability is extended only when we can properly verify that the station actually has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority. But no such verification is present here. NMEDIA explicitly states that the base notability conditions for radio stations have to be properly sourced for the NMEDIA pass to be given — we delete radio stations if we can't properly verify that they actually satisfy all three of the core requirements. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The National Telecommunications Commission (Philippines) lists this station: http://region7.ntc.gov.ph/index.php/regional-profile/radio-and-tv-broadcast-station Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's just a directory list of stations that exist, not a database record of their licensing statuses. All that list proves is that the NTC is aware that the station exists, in exactly the same way that Industry Canada and the FCC are always aware of all low-power VFs and pirate radio operations in their respective countries whether they have licenses or not — it doesn't prove that the NTC has given them a license to operate. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At [50] (an official Filipino government publication from 2011), it lists DYFU 101.3 as being licensed to "Vicente Foundation University" in the Negros Oriental region. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable and independent source to verify WP:NRVof its nobility WP:GNG. Listed sources in the page do not able to provide Wikipedia verification guidelines to meet well "source". CASSIOPEIA (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The NTC link did something; prove that this station is 300 watts, not the 1,000 claimed in the article. That means it barely covers the campus area and maybe most of Dumaguete, and nowhere else. As it is, this is a university radio station that's comparable to carrier current stations, which means it doesn't have much range, few sources and little notability off-campus. Nate • (chatter) 09:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foundation Unoversity. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable college radio station. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 26 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arrow Films releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --wooden superman 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- useful resource for a well known and established boutique blu-ray label. Cagwinn (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTCATALOGUE (this being a British company, eh wot). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per not catalog.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arrow Video USA Releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --wooden superman 10:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- useful resource for a well known and established blu-ray label. Cagwinn (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed by the rational of the sole Keep !vote. However given there is only one favoring deletion I'd like to get some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This isn't The Criterion Collection. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG--Rusf10 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep while conceding that the criteria for inclusion needs to be beefed up and better defined. There does not appear to be a sense that this deficiency is enough to justify deletion. See also WP:FIXIT. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of totalitarian regimes[edit]

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

This article only sources one of these on the list and I'm not even sure you can even consider that sourced country totalitarian (not saying Venezuela isn't a dictatorship though). The problem is that it violates WP:NPOV and there are no other sources. Yes, some of them may seem obvious but others are a matter of opinion and we shouldn't just label countries as "totalitarian" unless used with caution which this article fails to do. I requested this be deleted before but the deletion template was removed. I am still not seeing why this page should continue to be on Wikipedia so I am requesting its deletion on accounts of violating WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:AD. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 06:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep':altought this article has some inconsitencies ,i oppose the deletion,because as the article says in one topic "this list is incomplete" .

So if its incomplete ,Fully scrapping this article isn't the best way to solving the errors in the article. Gregorius Deretius 09:26 12 january 2018(UTC)

Delete. I do not believe that there are any objective enough criteria by which Wikipedia can label a regime as totalitarian or not in its own voice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but provide adequate sourcing. There are numerous books that can be used for sourcing this list, such as this, this, that one, or that. Of course some sources can be found on other pages, such as Totalitarianism, but they should be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there are many sources that provide lists of totalitarian countries, but do they agree on any objective criteria for saying that they are totalitarian? Within any article about an individual regime we can discuss, using WP:DUE, how totalitarian it is or was based on the reliable source coverage, but inclusion on a list is a binary thing, so requires Wikipedia to make its own judgement as to whether a regime is/was totalitarian or not. I have still not seen any objective criteria by which we can make that judgement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources disagree on everything. But your are right that criteria for the list should be included. By the rules this list should include all countries described in reliable secondary RS as "totalitarian" during a certain period of their existence. There is obviously an agreement of RS that USSR, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were totalitarian countries. Looking at the books above, one can see a number of additional specific examples, such as Democratic Kampuchea (arguably even a more "totalitarian" country than others), etc. There is no problem to include them with in-line references. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:45, 20 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. C. Clark (settler)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, an early inhabitant of a smallish village who is mentioned as such in some books, without further indications of any notability. A non notable rapper as a 5th generation descendant is not really a reason to keep this either. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.".

The thing about the rapper may not be notable but the article itself would be considered notable due to its coverage outside of Wikipedia. Pokemon879 (talk) 3:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pokemon879 - Notability has nothing to do with the article itself. It has to do with the article subject, or what you're writing the article about. The statement you cited here means that (if applied correctly), there are no edits that anyone can make to an article on Wikipedia that will make that person notable. It has nothing to do with how well-written or how "good" the article is. Notability is established by the availability of independent reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth - sites that are outside Wikipedia determine this. I just wanted to add a comment to help clear any confusion here before you continue down this path and with the wrong interpretation of this process and these guidelines in-mind; AFD and notability is a process and guideline that new users typically don't understand until they gain some experience and tenure on Wikipedia. You're welcome to message me if you have any questions or need any help - I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found little about this settler on Google. Article cites Instagram as it source and has no concrete notability established, thus failing WP:Verifiability and WP:BIO. EROS ^message 11:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also cites 2 books (obviously you didn't read the references). If you google something as simple as "W.C Clark Puxico" several things will come up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemon879 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are primary sources such as death certificates which might be interesting to descendants, but are not the reliable secondary sources with significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Then there is a directory listing that says he bred swine, and passing references as one of several early residents of a place. These, too, are not the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:BIO and serve as the bases of an article. Being someone's ancestor is inadequate per WP:NOT.Instagram and the like are not reliable sources. Descendants might wish to create an entry at Ancestry.com. Edison (talk) 03:54, 20 January 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! 09:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Blu[edit]

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

A group with no long-lasting notability (see WP:SUSTAINED). Really only covered in news stories relating to one or two controversial, but not notable, events. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ORGDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, they've been involved in a couple of instances of idiocy in the past few months that have dominated the days' news. In lieu of an obvious redirect target, I think we should keep this article, at least for the time being, to see whether anything else comes from them. If they fizzle and don't do anything again, then we can revisit and delete this in a few months time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the group is known to have the same name as a TV show Romper Stomper (TV series). Leftwinguy92 (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Kb.au (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nominator rationale--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the news coverage is quite substantial and addresses several events. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in relation to WP:V, I also can't find any source that says the group goes by the name Patriot Blu rather Patriot Blue. Kb.au (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn fringe group; lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 26 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Films[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No evidence of notability. --wooden superman 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- pure and overly extensive WP:CATALOG and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- useful resource for a well known and established boutique blu-ray label. Cagwinn (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Such a enormously large list, from the two references for Better Off Ted and Napoleon Dynamite, means there is not just a lack of notability there is an abundance of original research and synthesis. Being "useful" does not provide an exemption. Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree with Caqwinn, useful resource for a well known and established boutique blu-ray label.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, no references. Impressive catalog of movies but notability isn't inheritied and we need independent sources. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 21 January 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! 09:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Exchange[edit]

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

Seems to have lack of notability (WP:GNG and WP:ORG) as also verifiability (WP:V). Article is poorly sourced and based largely on the organization's website. It has been tagged for this issue since June 2009. There are some independent sources but they are they are insufficient. This reference is about a single event which linked to the Global Exchange by stating that thse two activists are associated with the Global Exchange, not that it was action by the Global Exchange itself. The WTO mentions Global Exchange directly; however, as an alone it is not enough. That source seems to mention the Global Exchange but it is not probably a depth coverage. Search by the term "Global Exchange" gives a lot of results but most of them are not related to this organization. I was not able to find a significant sources by more specific searches. These sources may exists, of course, but at the moment I am not convinced. Beagel (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As an organization that's been around for 30 years, we have to consider that sources exist that aren't online. That said, the organization is covered in-depth in both this VOA article and this book chapter with significant mentions in this USA Today article, and this discussion of their work from CS Monitor with some briefer mentions of their work in the Guardian, Hometown Pasadena, and Worldwatch. -- irn (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per irn and the coverage in reliable independent sources they documented. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 20 January 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 Battle of Haldighati. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Punja[edit]

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

Unnotable article of a chieftain. He was neither of royalty nor nobility. Either this article should be deleted or redirected to the Battle of Haldighati. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep nominator has not done WP:BEFORE it seems. Someone has tagged the article with "unreliable source", but as far as I can see, this has not been explained on the talk page, where editors could help improve the article. Please also consider WP:ATD. Egaoblai (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who tagged it with the unreliable sources tag. Rana 2004 is not a reliable source as publications from Diamond Pocket books are not considered reliable historical books, and Sarbeshwar Sahoo is not a historian and the book is not historically reliable. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was this brought up to the people who created the article? Is there a previous discussion about why these sources aren't reliable? Egaoblai (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that the article can be sourced, e.g.: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59].... However, most of these basically say he was a Bhil (Bhils) chief who commanded a body of men in the rear during the 1576 battle. However, there also seems to be a modern day state award named for him (e.g. - some bestowals: [60] [61] [62] - which this seems to be a description of Rana Punja Award.Icewhiz (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz I know the article is mentioned in reliable sources, but as you mentioned all of them only mention his part in the Battle of Haldighati and nothing about his background, or that he participated in any other battles. mewariindia.com is not a reliable source as a) It is not a historically reliable website and b) It is not an official government site. I could not find any official goverment site of Mewar but I did found the official government site of Rajasthan, the province in which mewar is. See rajasthan.gov.in. I would recommend its redirection to the Battle of Haldighati. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the claim this is backed up by Diamond books. It does seem that he is highlighted in modern times as a Dalit of note (see - Class action, Times of India His organisation, Dalit Adivasi Evam Ghumantu Adhikar Abhiyan (Dagar), founded in 2006, chronicles and highlights Dalit contributions to history: Bhilu Rana Punja's role in rescuing Rana Pratap in the 1576 battle of Haldighati and Keerat Bari's part in saving Prince Udai Singh's life. For him, empowerment is also about locating your place in society.) and there is a modern day award - coverage of award bestowal by Udaipur Times. I'm assuming Udaipur Times is reliable enough for stating that an award has been bestowed. Without this modern use of this well documented footnote - I probably would've been neutral / weak delete. But what we have is a very well documented footnote/mention + modern use of this footnote in a different context.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced, but wherever Rana Punja is mentioned, he is only mentioned with the Battle of Haldighati, as we cannot find any other reliable sources which mention something else about him, I think it should be redirected. All the sources I've found uptill now only say that he was a commander of 400 bhil archers in the rear in the Battle of Haldighati and saved Maharana Pratap's life in that battle and awards have been commemorated in his name. With only this much content about him, I don't think that the notability of this induvidual article is established. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a couple sources, I'm not sure if they've been brought up already, but an article about a birthday celebration gives a small amount of detail on his life, including stating he held the title "king" of Bhomat, although I think perhaps the article is overselling a chieftancy.(Goswami, Vajrasar. Birth Anniversary of Rana Punja celebrated at Moti Magri Smarak, Udaiput Times, October 5, 2012) Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-- to Battle of Haldighati.Per later arguments of nom.No independent notability, otherwisee.Winged Blades^Godric 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in favour of redirection to Battle of Haldighati. The information you gave comes from a site and it can give inaccurate or honorary traditional information. All reliable sources only list him as a Bheel Chieftain of Merpur who fought in a battle. As for Rana 2004 by Bhawan Singh Rana, the book is not a reliable source as discussed many times before in talk pages as well. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If what Icewhiz says is true (and it appears to be), article subject meets WP:SOLDIER nos. 4 and 5 (because of information given in Battle_of_Haldighati#Army_strength, sourced to "Sarkar 1960, p. 77") and probably 3 (since he seems to have held a high leadership position in the military forces of his tribe). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment notability does not matter as much as the content we can take out from the reliable sources. Seeing the minimal amount of content that does not tell us anything about him except his chieftainship and participation in the battle, I agree with redirection to Battle of Haldighati or as an alternative, this article can be merged into either Bhil people or the Battle of Haldighati. --Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Haldighati for lack of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Should such sources present themselves (of which I'm not convinced) the article could be restored. The sources presented at this AfD are insufficient / passing mentions, so a redirect to the battle is appropriate, as typically done in WP:BIO1E situations. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 26 January 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. There's clear agreement here that these are not appropriate encyclopedia articles, but would be valuable in another setting. As somebody has already moved them to wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek grammar tables, I'm just going to delete them here. I also added a note on the talk (discussion?) page there to give some more history. I'm not an expert on the licensing/copyright issues around transwikification; if there's anything else I should do, please ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I also deleted:

Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Definite article and nouns
Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Verbs
Ancient Greek grammar (tables)

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Adjectives[edit]

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

This article should be moved to Wiktionary as an appendix, and deleted from Wikipedia for unencyclopedicity. An example of such an appendix: wiktionary:Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension. Professorjohnas (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles: Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Definite article and nouns, Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Verbs, Ancient Greek grammar (tables). Professorjohnas (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no text and only transcludes a section of Ancient Greek grammar (tables). – Uanfala (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that transliteration of the Greek words might be valuable for some readers, so I created an alternative version of Ancient Greek grammar (tables) with transliteration. The tables had to be displayed on three separate pages because the generation of transliteration (via Module:Ancient Greek) for all the terms in the tables was too expensive, in Lua memory or processing time, I don't remember which. There are a number of ways that I could see to fix that problem, so that the tables with transliteration could be displayed on one page, but it would be time-consuming.
I don't know if this and the other three articles fulfill Wikipedia's policies on inclusion. But I am curious why Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Adjectives is being nominated for deletion when Ancient Greek grammar (tables), which has been around for quite a long time, has not. Is it the subpage /Adjectives or the lack of a lead? (That would qualify two other articles mentioned above, Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Definite article and nouns, Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)/Verbs.) Or are all four articles mentioned above being proposed for deletion equally? — Eru·tuon 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ship all four articles off to Wiktionary if the markup works there (or can be easily modified to do so). This isn't content for the Wikipedia mainspace but hopefully we can find somewhere to put it as it looks very valuable to experts in this area (though with no knowledge of the subject area, I could be wrong). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 01:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ideally, an article shouldn't consist solely of tables (just as a list article sholdn't just consist in a bare list), but it's a step in the right direction. It's possible to build prose text around those table, explaining the patterns observed and relating their prior history and subsequent development: Ancient Greek is a damn well studied language, so there's no question there won't be sources for that. Just noting further that this article doesn't duplicate Ancient Greek grammar as it's more specific and has a different focus. Also, articles like this are a pretty standard feature of wikipedia: see Spanish conjugation for one that is more or less at the same stage of development, and Latin conjugation for one that has a bit more prose around the table skeleton. – Uanfala (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erutuon, I meant to nominate all the four articles for deletion. It was just that I did not (and still do not) know how to submit a multiple nomination using TW. I will nominate the other three for deletion if this one is deleted. By the way, these are very well-made tables, and I can tell how useful they are for Ancient Greek learners. I would love to see them flourish on our sister website. Professorjohnas (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala, I would say that both Spanish conjugation and Latin conjugation are encyclopedic because they include not just tables. Professorjohnas (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Copy all of them to Wiktionary, and turn the Wikipedia pages into redirects to those new pages.~~ Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the response to Uanfala by @Professorjohnas:, Merge - incorporate the tables into Ancient Greek nouns et al. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move all four articles to Wiktionary. Far too in depth to be able to merge to their relevant Ancient Greek grammar articles. Better off in Wiktionary. Established Calculus 23:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a grammar textbook. Sandstein 10:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, this isn't an encyclopedia article (or a list etc) and has no hope of ever becoming one. Somebody has already moved the content to Wiktionary as wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek grammar tables, the edit histories of the four pages here don't have anything in them so we don't need to keep those but I suggest somebody find the original source of this text and copy over the edit history to avoid Wiktionary breaching copyright. Hut 8.5 18:39, 28 January 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! 09:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suheyl Umar[edit]

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

Nothing significant about his career in sources. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Störm (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 5 new references to the article on 7 January 2018 including 3 references to Dawn (newspaper) and 1 reference to Pakistan Today newspaper. He was the director of Iqbal Academy Pakistan from 1997 to 2014 and has written over a dozen scholarly books in English. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough. They are either namechecks or trivial announcements which they do as a director of X institute. No source discuss themselves personally. Störm (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many books, but WorldCat shows all single-digit or low double-digit (e.g. 20s) holdings. This is below the conventions for PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 20 January 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Palange[edit]

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

The article lacks even one reliable source. It has been tagged with this problem for five years. IMDb only demonstrates that the person existed, and even at that at times is allged to have errors and is not a reliable source. My search for sources only showed as an additional real source Find A Grave, but that is not a reliable source either. There is no indication that any of Palange's roles meet the guideline of being significant roles in notable productions. There seems to have been an attempt to create articles on everyone credited in Hollywood film productions from 1920-1950 or maybe more years. This is just not the intended scope of notability for Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books has hundreds of results, showing Palange as among the principal cast of several films. --Michig (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC) A search of British newspapers from the first half of the 20th century shows her in significant roles in Speed to Burn, Road Demon, Winner Take All, Caught in the Act (starring role), Song of the City, and Little Miss Roughneck. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR (#1); "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.". I used Google, Google books, and even Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb and Find-Grave. Just raw data, and mention of a name that leads to bit-parts do not advance notability. Someone would have to actually show me the links that support Has had significant roles for actual notability, as I just don't see them, nor anything reliable to ever expand this past a 23 word pseudo-biagraphy. The movies listed on the article and above:
1)- Always Goodbye (1931 film) (one reference and IMDb "External links"): minor role,
2)- Song of the City (1937): A minor role,
3)- Romance of the Rio Grande (1941): Minor role.
4)- The Grapes of Wrath (film) (1940)) : Uncredited and almost nonexistent (Woman in Camp) and the subject is listed number 73 out of 77 in the cast.
5)- Speed to Burn (1938) (not listed in the article): Minor part playing Mama Gambini (as Ines Palange), listed at the bottom but at least not in the extra cast section,
6) Caught in the Act (1941) stars Henry Armetta, Iris Meredith, and Robert Baldwin. Ines is the stars wife and not significant role (at least #5 now) and was certainly not a "staring roll" as suggested above,
7)- Road Demon (1938), Minor roll and #11 on the cast list,
8)- Winner Take All (1939 film): Minor role, #7 on the cast list.
9)- Little Miss Roughneck (1938): Minor role (Mercedes Orozco), #6 on the cast list.

I could keep going on but all the rest are the same and most of the movies with Wikipedia coverage have one reference supported by IMDb usually used as a reference. Otr500 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you think actors in films listed 5, 6, and 7 in the cast list only had 'minor roles'? Like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader were some sort of minor characters in Star Wars? I've searched newspaper articles from the era she was appearing in films, which is a better guide that Rotten Tomatoes for that era. --Michig (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes sucks but I do not consider #5, #6, #7 to be "significant" for notability but am open to considering RS's. I have a very sensible idea: put the links, that two other editors couldn't find with no reason to lie, here if not in the article. I like all things history, but unlike some editors, I subscribe to following policies and guidelines. I consider any role, that doesn't have some notability (significant roles as identified by reliable sources), not leading roles or close supporting, to be minor for notability. If there is not some point or gauge then all members of the cast not uncredited would be considered "significant" and that is just not what consensus has shown. You listed the subject as having a "starring role" (headlining) in Caught in the Act so this must be a different film. I don't need "hundreds" but certainly more reliable sources than provided or that can be easily found. Otr500 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per thorough analysis by User:Otr500. This does not meet WP:NACTOR for lack of significant coverage of the subject's career. The number of hits and such do not count in deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I had hoped to be able to expand and WP:PRESERVE this article about an actress whose Hollywood career started when she was ~40 and lasted for almost 30 years. But I can't. Yes, Google Books has hundreds of results, but if we consider that Palange had ~100 film roles in her career, it should not surprise us, and AFAICT none of her roles were starring roles. Her role as Mrs. Camonte in the 1932 film Scarface is in the current version mentioned as the role, for which she was best known; but Mrs. Camonte is merely the mother of Paul Muni's character Antonio "Tony" Camonte, and I do not see Palange getting much more than trivial mentions for her role. So, she fails the SSG WP:NACTOR so far. Could she pass WP:BASIC? She perhaps could given the length of her career, but I can't find sources online that support she does. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 15:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. American sources are likely to be the best bets here, but from British newspapers of the time: Prescot Reporter, and St. Helens General Advertiser (5 May 1939): "Those lovable Gambinis, who made their screen debuts as a family in Speed to Burn, are due for a riotous return enagagement in...Road Demon, 20th Century Fox's motor racing melodrama. There is Papa Gambini, played by the inimitable Henry Armetta, and Mama Gambini, played by Inez Palange and the kids.", Faversham Times and Mercury and North-East Kent Journal (26 August 1939) about Winner Takes All: "Also prominent in the cast is the famous Gambini family, headed again by the inimitable Henry Armetta and including Inez Palange...", Forfar Despatch (3 August 1939): "Road Demon is a motor racing melodrama featuring the Gambini family, with Henry Armetta as Papa and Inez Palange as Mama.", Milngavie and Bearsden Herald (20 September 1941) "Caught in the Act, starring Henry Armetta, Iris Meredith, and Inez Palange." (no other cast members mentioned). --Michig (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if her performance in the classic original and influential Scarface movie isn't enough, and TCM has one of the famous scenes posted on their website, her roles as a singer and comedian in the duo Les Iris Palange is part of Library of Congress' Victor recording collection. This further establishes her historical significance. Her experiences as an immigrant are noted in a book about Italian immigrants to the U.S. Obviously, we are limited as to sources easily availavle online for performers from earlier eras but she had a significant role in a major and influential film and went on to have many other credites parts in other films. She's no Sophia Loren but her roles and signifance are worth noting and expanding as more details become available. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the book and press sources identified earlier, Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Variety may have her obituary. --RAN (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC per the references now at the article. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it looks like we are getting somewhere now with sourcing. Sam Sailor 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 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 Lavender Country. I'm not sure that page protection is needed at this point. Just point to this discussion and revert any attempts to re-create the article. If, at that point, it becomes an issue it can be requested. Killiondude (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Haggerty (country singer)[edit]

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

Per WP:NMUSIC, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" — but this offers and sources no reason whatsoever why he would need or qualify for a standalone biography separate from the band article. Of the three sources here, two are about the band rather than him, and while the third is more than trivially about him, it still addresses him in the context of the band rather than addressing any plausible notability claim independent of the band — so none of them actually support a credible reason why Haggerty and his band would need to have two separate articles. Normally I would just have redirected this, but this is now the third attempt since last June to make a standalone BLP of Haggerty happen without actually offering a reason why he would need a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the band, so I think it's time for a larger set of eyes to weigh in on this. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lavender Country. Not enough evidence of notability seperate from the band to justify having a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom, but protect the page so it cannot be recreated.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 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. I'm open to revisiting if better sourcing can be found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Black Tiger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating for deletion, as the sole "keep" vote in the last AfD did not actually read my nomination, where I said that Jimquisition is not considered proof of notability per WP:VG/S. Therefore it still fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please note, there was only one vote on the previous AfD, probably due to the 50+ Gaming AfDs ongoing. Disagreeing with the rational of a user is not usually a reason for re-listing. But anyway, there are two unquestionable RS; plus Tech Raptor, Voletic.com and Twinfinite, The Escapist, PC Games (Germany) all have articles on the game, due to it's poor port, and general poorness. Lee Vilenski(talk) 18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A game needs more than 2 RS to pass WP:GNG and the Kotaku one isn't a substantial mention. None of those you mentioned are RS. They are all unreliable sources and the Escapist one is a random forum post by a random user. In any case, it wasn't relisted because I disagreed with the rationale, but because there was no consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Eurogamer has written two articles about it, and Kotaku published one. (other sources mentioned above is not considered to be reliable according to WP:VG/RS) Mostly about the ethics of PlayStation Store promoting terrible games rather than talking about the game itself, so I don't think that these sources can justify the game's notability. We could probably merge this to PlayStation Store regarding quality control issues as well, but I don't see this as necessary given the weak coverage. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sourcing has been discussed in depth and its clear that notability is not established. Tip to Leitmotiv, attacking other editors rather than finding better sources is a) a waste of time and b) likely to get your opinion given less weight as you are clearly not arguing from a policy perspective. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rifts Collectible Card Game[edit]

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

No discussion in detail in any reliable sources. The fact that it was listed in a now extinct notable price guide does not show notability in the slightest. Notable does not equate with reliable and existence, which is not disputed, does not equate with notability. All sources on article and all that I've found have no even vague indication of reliability. Most are blogs, some are Wikis. Fails GNG by a mile. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and I vote to Keep as the article's creator. You overstate your case when you claim there are no reliable secondary sources, and flat out lie, when you suggest nothing is discussed in detail. I doubt you've read the Scrye magazine, and yes, I call your bluff. Scrye is a reliable guide and personally, I prefer it to the competition of InQuest. Just because a magazine got put out of business by the internet, doesn't make it less reliable; that's nonsense talk and you're really reaching with that argument. Your flawed logic could be applied to any scientific magazine or newspaper that was rendered obsolete by the internet as proof that it is no longer valid. Sorry, facts don't become invalid just because a company stopped producing a product. The fact remains, Scrye was a relatively prominent publication and is both notable and reliable, and works as a secondary source for this article, as well as InQuest, should I choose to go through my copies of that for source material.

Furthermore, there is no wiki source in the reference section. I assume, you're referring to SF-Encyclopedia? That's has exactly three editors (which I see is prerequisite for being a reliable secondary source) and is the online version of the book in its third edition. You don't need just secondary sources to confirm the existence of something, but they can be used to flesh out the details a bit in a supplementary way (there are two primary sources in the article), the remaining are secondary sources of varying quality, but all of them are used to note different aspects of the card game. InMint.com, sells the game, but it also describes the premise, for which I borrowed a few things. The full paragraph is this:

"In the Rifts Collectible Card Game, mankind, once dominant, now must struggle for survival against dire adversaries both human and inhuman. Set approximately 300 years in the future, Rifts Earth is a planet beset by dimensional anomalies, called rifts, through which aliens, demons, and magical forces have invaded our world."

So, more hyperbole coming from you, disproven. The CCGGamez.com site has 5 paragraphs that I could copy here, but won't... nah, I think I will to directly show you haven't bothered to review the sources in any substantial way, and have mislead everyone in your case against the article:

"The world of RIFTS, as introduced 18 years ago in the role-playing game of that name, is marked by two factors: danger and diversity. Earth has become crisscrossed with key lines of magical power and pockmarked by gates into other dimensions. Demons, vampires and dinosaurs stalk the land while the Earthlings themselves, dabbling in hand-me-down science and newfound sorcery, have formed into factions engaged in constant warfare.

In the new RIFTS Collectible Card Game, players lead these factions to take over what's left of North America. Each player starts with one of nine faction cards, a deck (the size of which is dictated by the faction) and a hand (likewise). Most cards in the hand are drawn at random from the deck, but some are chosen before the game begins.

Some cards can generate resources. On each turn each player "rotates" cards to play other cards from their hand, with certain restrictions. "Base" cards, representing cities and other large installations, can only be played using resources generated by a faction card. Other cards can require resources with a specific attribute; for instance, a factional restriction such as "2 Pecos" means the resources must be generated by cards with the "Pecos Empire" attribute (so only the Pecos Empire or its allies can use it). Other limitations such as "Tech" "Magic" or "Techno-Wizard" prevent all-magic factions from controlling armies of giant robots unless they have some source of technological resources.

One type of card, the Unit, is rated for Attack, Counter-Attack and Damage Capacity as well as special abilities (almost all units have them). During the combat phase, a player can order Units to attack another player. When this is done, the defender takes damage equal to the attacking units' Attack, while the attacking units take damage equal to the defenders' Counter-Attack. Counter-Attack points equal to an attacking units Damage Capacity kill that unit, whereas Attack points kill defending Units or Bases or can be "Decked" meaning the defender discards that many cards from their deck or hand.

When a player's deck runs out of cards they are out of the game. The last player standing wins."

The owner of that site, has clearly played the game, or digested the instruction booklet.

Your portrayal of the article lacks competency by a mile. I'm a little peeved with your outright dishonesty here. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Scrye wasn't a reliable source, only that notability does not equate with reliability. It appears that it, alone, may be the only reliable source you've got. However, and admittedly, I cannot check it, when the title of the article is "Scrye Price Guides: RIFTS", there doesn't seem like there's much chance of a discussion in detail, which is a requirement of sources for notability. And as best I can tell from your TLDR comment above, you clearly lack an understanding of WP:RS, as your recent (reverted) edit at WP:N also attests to. I'm also going to ping Diannaa to this conversation to look over your comment with an eye to copyright violation here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're backpeddling now. Go and review the 10 sources at the article, none of which are "blogs", nor "Wikis" and many, if not all, are reliable if you really poke your nose into them. Only then, come back with some legitimate arguments. Also, just because poor you, can't review any given article that's not online, doesn't mean it's not notable. Like I said, I could cite more of these non-readable issues if you desire. As for your TLDR comment, well that just shows you're failing at your job here and I expect more, since you were the one nominating this for discussion. The fact that I did write so much that your eyes just glossed over is probably proof you've given up, or that there's plenty of content worth citing. I suspect I understand WP:RS more than you do, if this thread is any indication. Leitmotiv (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just looked over the sources. I'm a gamer but not a CCG person (well not after 1994). I can't find any source that is more than either promotional text from the publisher (http://archive.li/9xZrf) or just a list of cards. The very very small number of reviews and the really poor rating on BGG makes me suspect the game isn't notable (that isn't a WP:N argument, but great rating and large number of reviews would make me suspect there are good sources out there). Now if the Scrye article(s?) has some depth, that would be great. Do you have a hardcopy of the article you could scan and post somewhere so we can take a look at it? But even if that article is solid, one article isn't going to be over the bar--WP:N requires multiple sources. And card lists and the like just don't count for much. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for looking over the sources, you can see they're not blogs or wikis, huh? That pissed me off with that ignorant false claim. While the link you supplied is promotional, in some sense, it is promotional for the RPG book, not the card game. The card game was defunct at the time he wrote that. Though I feel you're exaggerating your critique here. There is only 1 list article and 1 so-called "promotional" site. That still leaves other sources. Sorry I don't have access to a scanner, but that's probably an investment coming down the road. As for a game being notable, that's really in the eye of the beholder. If I have reliable secondary sources one of the requirements for keeping an article around, it seems I've done my part to make an appropriate article. Btw, I'm adding another source as I've found more material from a book I've recently purchased. Any comment on the Youtube source? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out what you think are the best 2 or 3 sources? Everything I'm seeing is either just a card list or not independent. But I'm willing to admit I might be missing something. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm rewriting my original response. If you can't figure out what the best 2 or 3 sources are, then maybe you shouldn't be the one reviewing the sources. It's pretty clear what the best sources are. But what makes this article great is that all the sources working together has made an article like this. It's a solid three paragraphs with another smaller fourth paragraph. I feel I could break down some of the flaws in the second sentence of your reply, but I deleted it feeling that we're going in circles and that maybe you aren't reviewing the sources properly in conjunction with what they're citing in the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The problem is I'm not seeing any good sources. I asked in the hopes I missed something (I looked at all the ones on-line in the article and didn't see anything that was independent and had depth.). If you can't or won't identify any in the article and can't or won't add anything about anything not in the article, I think I've reached the point that I can't find a reason to keep the article. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a real close look then, rather than a glance. Scrye Magazine and a Book are good and dedicated sources on this very topic, there you got it out of me. But it shows that I don't feel you're really trying very hard. They're good sources and I think you should admit that. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about the Scrye article anywhere. You apparently have it, but lack a scanner (or a camera?) to get a copy out and you've not described the coverage. The book doesn't appear to have significant coverage of the game (it mentions it a lot, but no details that I can find). Hobit (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can't read something personally, doesn't mean it's not valuable or lacks content. Sorry, that's a fallacy. But yes, both have content regarding the article. Neither are fully available online, the book only in part, so I'm not sure how you can say you reviewed them. Addendum: If you look at the index it shows Rifts being mentioned on no less than 8 pages. I bought the book recently and I've applied it to a few articles I've edited and created, and plan on using this book much more. Addendum 2: I think it's funny that you say I haven't described the coverage. I created the article with inline citations! Have you read the article? As I said above, I could use these sources overlapping existing citations, but I didn't see the point. Do you want me to do that? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be formal (I commented above at length) ~~delete~~. The topic doesn't meet WP:N with any of the sources in the article that I can access nor do I have confidence that the sources off line have any more detail. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) -- Correction--merge to Rifts (role-playing_game). Probably just a paragraph, but it can easily fit under "Spinoffs and alternate editions" in that article. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance is no excuse to say you've thoroughly investigated the matter, but your voting like you have. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at every source in the article that is on-line. You have the only non on-line source but have refused to provide it or describe it in any meaningful detail. My sense is you have no leg to stand on and so resort to insults. It has certainly made me not wish to engage, but I don't care to be bullied, so here I am. This doesn't meet WP:N and you have no evidence it does. Hobit (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refused? That's not putting it honestly. You asked if I could provide material and I said I didn't have the means. I've also stated I made inline citations for the content they provide, but that seems to be lost on you, as well as your answer to my question if I should cite other stuff that overlapped in those sources. I may have come on strong, because the dude who started this discussion lied up front and it pissed me off. I may have insulted you because objectivity has left you. You state I haven't supplied evidence - ignoring the two secondary sources cited in the damn article. Somehow you think your lack of access is proof positive that they don't qualify. That's nonsense. They're bonafide secondary sources no matter how you personally want to spin it. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm to understand you don't own a cell phone with a camera? And that in addition you are unable to provide a summary of the article in your own words? No on-line source that meets WP:N exists and at this point I'm unwilling to take you at your word that the off-line source has anything more (though again, a scan good picture or a fairly detailed summary would help). I lean toward inclusion here. But there just aren't sources. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is ridiculous. You don't seem to listen or answer my question (maybe I can return the favor?), which in turn would answer the one you're asking now. I've provided in line citation for the sources that essentially summarize parts of the articles. I'll ask again though: do I need to cite the the overlap with the other articles to show what they cover? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you could provide the three best sources that count toward WP:N. And if you cite an off-line source, you could provide a brief summary of what that source covers. This is a standard thing at AfD. As far as I can tell, there are no independent sources that cover the topic in any depth. Hobit (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed that concern too. Are you sure you've read my comments? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've read everything. I will admit I find the hostility hard to read through, so maybe I missed something. Again, could you list the three best sources? And if you list an off-line source, could you either take a picture of it or briefly describe it? Hobit (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Akinyele Akindayomi[edit]

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

Didn't speedy the biography for the claimed position of President of a Nigerian association. Had to remove copy-vio material from the article. Couldn't find any reliable sources that could assist the subject in passing the GNG/BIO thresholds. Lourdes 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG no in-depth coverage sources are just a couple of listings and his own website. Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Kirkpatrick[edit]

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

At first glance, it looked like there was coverage, but most of the sources are mere mentions of the person or confirmation that he belongs to a group etc. In the end, it's a puff piece without significant coverage of the subject by reliable third-party sources. Would not oppose a redirect to his company article per WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His organization is still in the news.[63] Has this not already been discussed? 76.109.23.49 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)— 76.109.23.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1) No, there hasn't been an AfD discussion. 2) The notability of his company isn't the subject of discussion. This is about the notability of the individual. Being the CEO of a notable company doesn't give you a free pass to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Most of the sources aren't independent at all. I do not believe that the Who's Who entries are evidence of notability, as I believe these particular publications include all senior executives of all companies over a certain size. The Marquis Who's Who, in particular, allows subjects to submit their own biographies and boasts of having over 1.5M biographies. Pburka (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 26 January 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! 09:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Demehin[edit]

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

Actor whose only significant film/television role seems to be a recurring minor character, no indication of meeting WP:NACTOR. PROD removed by User:Waledemz (who was not the article creator) without comment after adding unsourced claims abour theatre roles and a program called Ajalangers (which returns no results on Google).

Of note: Waledemz's username matches a stage nickname used by Demehin, claims to be Demehin on their talk page, and has twice tried to create articles about Demehin in the past. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC); edited 15:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep

Adewale Demehin is a known Nigerian actor. He played the role of Cabman in Jenifa's Diary. Search engine statistics is not a requirement to decide an article should be deleted WP:INVALIDBIO. I now direct user RA0808 to WP:FAILN. Also, page does not fail to meet any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability. User removed {{prod}} tag because article does not meet requirement for proposed deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Demehin is so well known, why were both the article creator and Waledemz seemingly having as much difficulty as I did locating "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as required by WP:GNG)? RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC); edited 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Adewale%20Demehin, http://blog.irokotv.com/tag/adewale-demehin should be what you are looking for. The person in the content is well talked about (though upcoming), and a large number of Jenifa's Diary fans have shown interest in this topic, and hence the topic deserves to carry a page on Wikipedia. As earlier stated, page does not meet the requirement for PROD tag, meets the Wikipedia:Notability requirements, and the requirements by WP:GNG "significance coverage in reliable sources..." have been presented to you.

This nomination is flawed, and you should have done further research and requested the article be improved, rather than deleted (WP:BEFORE Step C.)

The article only needs improvement, and not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are examples of significant coverage. Revolvy is a Wikipedia fork and is not a reliable source per WP:FORK, and even if it were reliable Demehin is only given a trivial mention in a cast list. The Irokotv link also only gives a trivial mention in a cast list. WP:N requires significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about a YouTube video?

https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lsulVsZJLW8&t=8m48s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the main topic, and it is not a trivial feature either.

Plus, you requested citation for "Adewale has played several roles in stage plays including OLD MOYO (GCK) 2001 , AJAGBE (Divine Assembly) 2009, OBA (Divine Assembly) 2010 amongst others." The events were obviously not publicized on the internet, because the internet had not gained much grounds in Nigeria at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tends to be cagey about YouTube as a source, but even if it was taken as a reliable source (which I would ask others to weigh in on), it still is one source that is about what seems to be his only significant provable role. As for the stage plays, sources do not have to be on the Internet. If they were notable productions were there not newspaper articles written about them? RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, fails WP:NACTOR. I hope you don't abandon Wikipedia, when this article gets deleted. Please read WP:COI when making further contributions. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomination is flawed": HandsomeBoy You could state which sections of WP:NACTOR that this page fails. And I am aware of what WP:COI discourages. I have no relationship with the owner of this profile, and haven't received payments for my edits here or elsewhere.

I visited the page to learn more, and saw the nomination for deletion. I suggest it should be improved rather than deleted. Visit Wikipedia:Autobiography. Note 'If you have been published elsewhere on a topic, "we welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wikipedia readers' knowledge." Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted.' Page was not created to cause an excessive hype about the personality, or for reasons of self promotion. Else, you who have nominated should point such places out that spell excessive praises on the profile. Also, acting records (especially for stage plays) as at 2009 in Nigeria, are rarely found on the internet. But just because they are not on the internet doesn't mean they never occurred, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the article creator, whom I already explained why the article wasn't notable on my talkpage. But since you replied me, the reason the article fails NACTOR is that he has not had main roles in multiple notable films; neither has he been nominated or won an award in a notable film ceremony. Awards like AMAA, Best of Nollywood Awards and Nigeria Entertainment Awards have been existing before 2010, if he or any of his works were notable, they would have at least gotten a nomination. Secondly, the short films you claimed he acted in are of questionable notability. For a film to be notable, we need a reliable source to talk about it, either online or in print. The only notable film he has acted in is Jenifa's Diaries, and it was a minor role. NACTOR talks only about significant roles, not minor. Don't waste your time, this article will definitely get deleted. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ Comment.

I will quote Wikipedia:Notability

•"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Article does not seem to fail this.

• "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

Article does not seem to fail this either...

• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

The sources requested here have been provided. Person in article is featured in a YouTube video which has over 200,000 views, and has been watched by thousands of fans on Jenifa's diary.

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

This has been provided as well.

Article may be safe from deletion, since it meets these requirements... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 23:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeBoy (talk) you should also read under additional requirements on NACTOR: I'll quote;

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

"A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion."

I hope you see that this nomination for deletion deletion has been flawed all along.

Person in article does not require any awards to qualify for a space on Wikipedia. Plus, the role of Adewale Demehin in Jenifa's Diary cannot be passed as insignificant.

Keep

Below are the requirements for an article to be deleted, and after reading through, the article, fortunately passes all of them, and as such, should not be deleted.

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

Content does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion...

Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

These have already been discussion by User:Davioseki:Davioseki

Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Person in this article does not breach the Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

Redundant or otherwise useless templates

Categories representing overcategorization

Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policyAny other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Kindly move over to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This article is true and useful... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistabong (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the sake of easing the reading for other editor's viewing this discussion... let's review what sources we have so far related to Demehin in relation to WP:GNG as of the 16:04, 19 January 2018‎ revision. We have:
- Trivial mention of him in a cast list for Jenifa's Diary
  - Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
- A behind the scenes video from Jenifa's Diary including interview segments with Demehin produced and posted to YouTube by SceneOne, the show's production company
  - Significant coverage Y, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
- The About Us page for Mercy Upon Mercy, an organization founded by Demehin and his wife, that lists him as Co-Founder with no other information.
  - Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
- A brief (three line) blog post from Mercy Upon Mercy about a trip led by Demehin and his wife to an old folk's home
  - Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
- The About Us page for Kr8tvt Solutions, a web design company founded by Demehin.
  - Significant coverage Y, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
- An article about Demehin on BooshBingBang, a blog run by a Nigerian expat in the UK (interestingly enough, the web design for the blog was done by Demehin's company Kr8tvt).
  - Significant coverage Y, reliable source N, independent of subject Not sure

Based on this, Demehin does not meet WP:GNG nor does his one role on Jenifa's Diary meet WP:NACTOR. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment;

Just a reminder. An article does not need to meet all the requirements to appear on Wikipedia especially as stated under NACTOR. Eitherway. I still stand my ground that this article only needs improvement, rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davioseki (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ademiyan does not meet any of the three specifications of WP:NACTOR, he is not notable, not only by Wikipedia guidelines but also from the dictionary definition of notability. He is currently a nobody in Nollywood. This is not about lack of sources, this is about reality. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with HandsomeBoy. WP:BIO says that if a subject does not meet the NACTOR criteria they may still be notable under WP:GNG. Demehin's lack of multiple significant roles means he does not meet NACTOR and, as I showed above, he does not meet GNG requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise, per WP:FAILN, non-notable topics without plausible merge targets are generally deleted. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Davioseki (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davioseki (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Davioseki (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Handsomeboy, just because an actor is a "nobody" to you, does not make them a "nobody in Nollywood." Neither does it make the article useless to Wikipedia. Clearly I have searched for and provided enough links to show how others may be interested in this person. WP:SCNR clearly states,

"...An article like this, however short it may be, does serve Wikipedia’s ultimate purpose. This article is useful. In other words, if a topic has received coverage (i.e. is noticed) in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s, however big or small, significant or insignificant the coverage may be, the topic could be considered to be notable, i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice, and thus Wikipedia may have a stand-alone article on that topic..."

RA0808, fortunately for the article, you would be wrong to say that the article does not meet the significant coverage in independent, reliable and verifiable sources, and as such, should not be on Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:BLP1E and take note that, even if Adewale Demehin was mentioned in only one notable event, the Jenifa's Diary, yet, the page still deserves a stand alone page on Wikipedia. Was the subject mentioned in one notable event with significant coverage? Yes, the Jenifa's Diary. Was there a detailed coverage on the subject? Yes, the SceneOne TV YouTube channel. Davioseki (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davi'O, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this topic but this is simply grasping. To begin: WP:SCNR is an essay, as it clearly states at the top. Essays are not the same as guidelines or policies, and in fact have no official status on Wikipedia (see WP:ESSAY). Even if it was, Demehin does not even meet the criteria given in SCNR of "coverage... in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s" since it is questionable the BooshBingBang can be considered independent and all other sources are directly connected to Demehin (and thus not independent). Even SCNR - again, which has no official status since it is an essay - requires that a source be both independent and reliable.

Moving on to your discussion of WP:BLP1E, it does not apply here. BLP1E relates to people who are notable for their connection to an event of lasting, historical significance (i.e. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, Westgate shopping mall attack, Death of Adolf Hitler) not someone who is an actor on a television show. The criteria which apply in that case is WP:NACTOR which, as I've said repeatedly, Demehin has no indication of meeting. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SceneOne distribution are the production company for Jenifa's Dairy, owned by Funke Akindele, how can you use them as a source to show significant coverage for an actor that they employ? The interview can never be independent! I'm done spending time on this pointless discussion, something I should dedicate to improving articles on genuinely notable topics. Your persistence and refusal to learn will not make you contribute constructively and enjoy Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and not even close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case.Davioseki (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and there's nothing better. Promotionalism only for a nn individual. Analysis of sources above shows that the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Black (actor)[edit]

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

This page lacks any reliable sources. What we have here are sources that aim to be comprehensive databases listing everyone involved in acting with no regard for impact, and which due to various issues have been judges by the Wikipedia community to not meet the criteria of reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable sources, which we have lacking here. There is no clear evidence that any of his roles ever fit the description of a substantial role in a notable production. His film roles seem to have been minor and forgettable, and it is not clear any of his stage roles were even in productions that were notable. My google search for sources turned up absolutely nothing that was close to a notable source. It did near the start give me a hit for Bill Cosby, showing that entering the term William Black and actor into google get some interesting results. I also learned there have been other actors who went by both William Black and Bill Black, so if this article is kept, it may well need to be moved to William Black (actor born 1871).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. IBDb is a reliable source since it is not WP:USERGENERATED. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the original creator of the article. Frankly, I don't understand the policy rationale under which this is nominated, since I believe the subject passes the notability requirements for an actor, and the nominator didn't actually provide a policy-based reason for deletion. IBDb is, as MarnetteD says, not a user-generated database such as IMDb, it is owned, compiled and run by The Broadway League -- the official national trade association for Broadway theater. I have had occasion to correct credits in the database, and in my discussions with them, I was required to provide proof of the change I wanted to make in the form of references such as printed programs and other reliable sources. Their information is based on their archives of Broadway productions and other reliable research materials. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if kept, no disambiguation is needed, since we don't have articles on those other actors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:NACTOR. IBDb reference seems perfectly reliable, as explained by commenters above. -- Begoon 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the above have demonstrated that the broadway database in any way limits its coverage to people who are involved in significant roles in notable productions, which is what would be needed to show that it is a source that adds towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing notability as an article-level standard with an entry-level standard, just as you did when you mass-removed multiple entries from the articles of notable actors such as Gilbert Roland, ZaSu Pitts, Leon Ames and others. [64] It's quite possible for the career of a notable actor to consist in large part of non-notable roles, especially during the studio era, when most actors were essentially indentured servants who were required to do whatever the studio bosses told them to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Having performed leading roles in several original Broadway productions and revivals of significant works satisfies encyclopedic notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an important actor of the time. '"Xargov'" 17:21, 24 January 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.

^ Alexander Tarlinder (2017). Developer Testing: Building Quality into Software. Addison-Wesley.
^ https://www.istqb.org/references/books/referenced-books-in-istqb-syllabi.html

[1] Alexander Tarlinder (2017). Developer Testing: Building Quality into Software. Addison-Wesley.

[2] ttps://www.istqb.org/references/books/referenced-books-in-istqb-syllabi.html

[1]

[2]