Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 July	19 July >

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 keep. Withdrawn - obviously there's more of substance here than I initially saw. I appreciate the work put in to reference and improve the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiko Itō[edit]

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (courtesy ping) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name, and of the Japanese name. There were absolutely no results for either version of the English name, not even trivial ones. The results for the Japanese name were hardly better: for the most part they were trivial mentions in books about photography, and in one or two cases there was not enough context to tell if it was the same Yoshihiko Itō. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about this person, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find the Tokyo Museum collection by switching my search language to Japanese. The resulting collections page was 1/2 English, 1/2 Japanese.96.127.242.226 (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject had a solo exhibition at Photo Gallery International (PGI), a small but respected Tokyo gallery, in 2017. See www.pgi.ac/exhibitions/2766/, also short review of exhibition published at Artscape.jp artscape.jp/report/review/10133325_1735.html Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article certainly can be expanded and improved, but as he has had exhibitions in Japan [1], Taiwan [2] and as part of a group in the US [3], and whose work has been collected [4][5], he may qualify under WP:ARTIST. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The National Museum of Modern art in Tokyo has 26 of his works in their permanent collection. He's also in another significant public collection in Arizona, so he meets WP:NARTIST. I added these and some other material to the article.96.127.242.226 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I didn't look at that good enough before deletion, it passes criteria.(non-admin closure) RF23 (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Alley (band)[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article already has four instances of third-party coverage of the band. Plus, members Mark Deutrom and Lori Black meet another bullet of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Mari[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Being nominated as a Servant of God is only one step of many toward actual sainthood, and does not inherently confer notability. The Italian article was deleted in 2009 for lack of notability(see their AfD equivalent).

I can't find any independent sources in books or newspapers, although I am limited by only being able to search in English. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe change if she is beatified. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete my searches in proquest historic newspapers and books brought up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a listing for a book of her letters in the catalog of a library in Italy, but I was not able to find the biography mentioned in the article. The newsletter cited as a reference shows that she met Pope Paul VI. A https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ida+Mari%22+site%3Ava Google search] for "Ida Mari" site:va didn't turn up anything useful. There is a park named after her, mentioned here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael Sadiq Montague (ISM)[edit]

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

Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains^(talk) 23:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meatsgains, I've noticed that you marked my page for deletion. Why is that? I've provided links and additional references to state where I sourced my information from. ISM is a credible producer who is signed to the major music publishing company, APG. How can we resolve this issue? I've worked hard on the page and would be saddened to see it deleted from the encyclopedia. Once again, ISM is a music producer who has produced for some of the most credible artists in the music industry including Chris Brown, Ty Dolla Sign, Jason Derulo, etc. Please check out the following websites that highlight his production work: http://artistpg.com/producer/ism/ https://genius.com/artists/Ism

AmalNoor (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)AmalNoor[reply]

Most of the references you've included on the page do not detail the subject and he seems to lack notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AmalNoor, you need to provide independent, reliable sources that comply with WP:RS - ones that actually describe ISM and his work in some detail and point to his involvement in notable projects. The Headline Planet and Billboard sources do not mention ISM at all, so we cannot verify his involvement in these records, even though the songs themselves are notable. The JukeboxDC and Datpiff sites only show he produced these non-notable records by non-notable artists, and say nothing about ISM or why he is notable. The first source is presumably the publishing company that ISM is signed to, so it's not independent or impartial. And the Genius site you linked to is for a completely different musical artist. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable producer who fails WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSIC. I will note that article subjects do not inherit notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) from other, more notable subjects, so the subject's projects are not a testament to his notability. In the same vein, if WP:RS covering projects the subject was involved with do not deem him worthy of mentioning, then an encyclopedia should not reflect his significance either. This is the issue with the coverage surrounding the subject, and trivial mentions wont cut it either.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 07:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boffin of the Yale[edit]

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

A family of characters from Middle-earth. The article is written in an in-universe style and referenced only to the Tolkien novels. I can't find sources outside of Tolkien and fan material to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG (though maybe I'm not looking in the right place?). The page has previously been created by the same user, and PRODed and deleted. So it feels like an AfD is in order. An alternative to deletion may be a redirect to List of hobbit families which is where a previous iteration of this article now redirects. Thoughts from others would be most welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources, which is unsurprising since the subject of this article isn't real. The family trees are directly copied from the The Encyclopedia of Arda (cited by the article). This type of content is more suitable for Wikia. A redirect is not appropriate because the article is misnamed. (The first sentence suggests that the correct title should have been "The Boffins of the Yale.") Newslinger (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hobbit families, or else to hobbit. Vorbee (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft, without any reliable source. It also includes personal speculation by the creator of the article: "It seems as if ...", "seems to be associated with ...", "could also be considered ...", "they might be known for ..." (Also, unless I am much mistaken, much of the content, including most of the family tree is made up by fans, and does not occur in the books.) And no, don't redirect, because from my searches the expression "Boffin of the Yale" appears only in Wikia, other fan sites, and Wikipedia and its mirrors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Greenidge[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Player has not played in fully-pro league. RRD (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RRD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 20:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Klaper[edit]

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

Klaper does not meet WP:GNG, No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are primary. Does not meet any criteria for WP:AUTHOR 8==8 Boneso (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Dr. Michael Klaper's role in shaping and informing the American vegetarian movement during the 1980s was profound. This would not be evident to nonvegetarians who did not participate in organized vegetarian events and activities. Admittedly, the current article is bnoth skimy and poorly written poorly sourced, and unbalanced concerning Dr. Klaper's real contributions. Give us some time to document that and to build the article better. MaynardClark (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator appears not to have followed WP:BEFORE. Contrary to their statement that there is "no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources", such coverage can be found in the following sources, among others: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] He was also described in 2004 as one of several "leading advocates of vegetarianism (or veganism)." ^[4] It is evident that he meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO as he appears to be regarded as an "important figure" (NAUTHOR criterion 1) and there is significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with both MaynardClark (talk · contribs) & IntoThinAir (talk · contribs) points. There are sufficient citations that show this article subject is Notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. — Lentower (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everymorning and sources including NZ Herald and LA Times. Agree with querying the depth and quality of the WP:BEFORE performed. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm waiting to vote as no one has addressed all the comments I made on Talk. Nothing on the current page is valid. Someone needs to take all that out, and bring in the new citations, otherwise we are not going to see what we have. It's all well and good that you say there are citations, but the article needs to be fixed. Sgerbic (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply 1) There is no need to replace ALL of the text or ALL of the citations. They just need to be evaluated by WP:PSTS & other relevant guidelines. Among other guidelines, WP:AGF directs us to do so. 2) All the text on the page may be valid, but by WP guidelines, we can't verify it. If enough of it is verified, the text supported just by the primary sources can be left, unless it violates other guidelines. Again, WP:AGF, & other guidelines, directs us to do so. — Lentower (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply That is fine when it's something like we can't find a citation to prove a college degree or something. But what I listed on the talk page isn't just one or two citations. It is pretty much the whole thing. I'm glad to see that it is being repaired, but we don't just assume good faith for the entire page.Sgerbic (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Yes, this page needs work by an experienced editor who can bring WP:NPOV, etc. to it. When I edit, I work hard to lean away from any of my biases. — Lentower (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article is unsalvageably biased and needs a good dose of TNT applied to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed a bunch of peacock words, some were subtle. I'm still not clear why we have a genealogy in the info box. I've removed the "4 vegan cousins". I can see parents names but that's about it, if his brother is relevant to page or he is notable then I can see that. Also maybe if he is a "royal" someone and people need to know the lineage. I'm still keeping an eye on it. It is very glossy and some of these claims that Klaper is making are setting off red flags for me. I would be a lot more comfortable with the page remaining if there were some notable critical articles from medical experts to weigh in. Because I can't find these articles (notable people) and Klaper's claims are so "out there" I'm suspecting that Klaper isn't "notable" by Wikipedia standards. The people (and organizations) that would be best to look into Klaper's claims and respond, do not seem to be aware of him. If he is the miracle glowing person that this Wikipedia page seems to be saying then where are the endorsements from notable scientists? Surely medical science would be singing his glory? Where is it? Sgerbic (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have removed the claim that Klaper is notable as one of several "leading advocates of vegetarianism" see the talk page for my reasons for doing so. What we are currently left with a American physician who writes about veganism, speaks at conferences, and states that children should be raised as vegans. Apparently Dr. Spock is in agreement, but I know nothing about that. With this said how is Klaper notable? What makes him different than every other doctor that is also vegan? And "if" he is agreeing with notable Dr. Spock on one issue, then that does not make Klaper notable. Now "if" Dr. Spock were agreeing with Klaper then that would be different, and quite odd as Spock is long gone. So now what? Sgerbic (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and seriously? Klaper is one of the world's leading advocates for veganism and vegetarianism, and has been for decades. Might as well delete those pages too if this one is up for deletion. Many of the pages I have to come to AfD for (and gladly it's not too often, a depressing corner of Wikipedia) are about subjects which are quite notable, as this one is. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Well then you shouldn't have trouble proving it then. Sgerbic (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is clear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the way, Sgerbic listed 12 citations in Talk:Michael_Klaper#Notability? that she said are problematic. All 12 have been responded to. Mksword (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a lot to digest here, firstly the note relating to my abuse of WP:BEFORE: When looking for references to prove notability I look for references that comply with WP:GNG. I had read the 3 articles nominated which speak more of the diet that Klaper is promoting that it does about him. They are certainly not articles that contain Significant coverage that address the topic in detail. All I can glean from those articles is that Klaper is a former anesthesiologist who switched to general practice and nutritions and that he is promoting a vegan diet, and that he has been a vegan since 1981. He has been nutrition adviser to NASA and appeared in 2 films. Only the NZ Herald story is primarily about Klaper and it is a soft interview that is promoting his speaking tour; that article too, says more about the diet he is promoting than the man himself. Relying on those articles to prove notability smells like WP:ILIKEIT. As far as WP:AUTHOR is concerned, a single mention in this way in a book on page 228, sounds like a passing mention in a book devoted to a seperate topic in which Klaper does not appear to rate any more than this mention. I have seen no evidence that he is an important author or widely cited by by his peers. Two books do not make a significant body of work. A large number of references have been added that I will look at and address in a seperate comment. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. References added since nomination are mostly to conference sites where Klaper is mentioned once, public record searches, or publications that mention him in passing. One reference to the LA Times doesn’t even mention him at all. This is a serious case of refbombing. Can someone please point me to a reference that indicates notability? And explain how it makes him notable, I am not seeing any significant coverage by an independent reliable source. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to set up a Google Alert for Klaper. I don't know if I'm looking at the same Internet as everyone else, comments here keep talking about Klaper as being notable cause ... well cause everyone knows that. Wikipedia does not work that way. I'm not finding what they say is obvious. I'm trying, but what I'm finding isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Sgerbic (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Further sources to check. I don't have time to work further on this article until well after this AfD closes.17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Before I first posted on this AfD, I had a quick look at all the "(Find sources … )" links at the top of this AfD. Some look good for notability. — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of Klaper's work was before the Internet, as well as when the Internet was growing in the early '90s. So for Due Diligence: — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check out the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature for 1980 to 1999. — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go into a decent library to check other print indexes to publications for those two decades. For scholarly work, a good reference library is needed -- e.g. at better Universities & College, the Research Branch of the NYC Public Library, the Library of Congress, etc. — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check out the PBS video mentioned in the article, and add a <ref>{{cite video| … }}</ref> with the timestamp(s) of Klaper's segment(s). If its behind PBS's new paywall Passport, please comment here -- another editor might have Passport access. (Not all of PBS' content is paywalled.) — Lentower (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somebody has a wrong idea of what footnotes are for. The purpose of a footnote is to authenticate, clarify, illustrate, or elucidate something that's in the text of the article. Footnotes in this Michael Klaper article don't need to be about Michael Klaper. Mksword (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-09-05/features/8901100810_1_vegetarian-ocala-national-forest-gentle-people/2
^ http://articles.latimes.com/1991-04-23/news/vw-785_1_animal-flesh
^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11945058
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=0AiAz62C_jcC See page 238.

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Valley Chinese Language School[edit]

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

Not a notable school. The classes are once a week on Friday nights from 7pm to 9pm and there are no secondary references. Article is also promotional in tone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- » Shadowowl | talk 23:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a regular academic school that offers high school degrees. Maybe there needs to be an article for Association of Northern California Chinese Schools as there are multiple Chinese language schools that are similar in notability or more notable as they have actual newspaper articles written about them. Highly promotional text like how to register, and how the school is a "great experience", as well as irrelevant detail as to how worldwide the Cantonese language is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC) updated 21:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows[edit]

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

Should not have come out of AfC. User has been using antiquated, offensive sources (calling people's religions "magic") and refusing to let admins see copies when we suspect plagiarism. Every one of these articles has needed massive cleanup. This one is full of inaccuracies, and what content is correct is already covered in other articles. I considered merging it to Pawnee or Cheyenne, but the low quality of sources don't make it worth it. This is grade-school level writing combined with probable copyvios (the sources just aren't online to check). We need to delete it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Kudo’s to the editor that created this article. A lot of time – effort and work went into the creating the piece. However, though I can verify the references used are legitimate scholarly works, I cannot verify the exact content of the work as it pertains to this article. At this point, the piece seems to be just a cut and paste from the selected volumes, which would violate Copyright Violations or may be viewed as Original Research. As such, either way, may be available for a speedy delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale for deletion given. AfD is not cleanup. Neither is AfC. A number of sources already in the article, and the most cursory of online searches shows there are more to work with besides.

Beyond that, repeatedly accusing someone of plagiarism without evidence other than a dislike of their writing style (and doing so in such an aggressive manner while not being bothered to produce any actual evidence) is bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS. For what it's worth, some of the sources, like this one and this one are available online (imagine what you might find if you looked). They're cited 23 times in the article between the two, and I see no evidence of close paraphrasing, much less outright copying in any of them. Even despite the fact that both these works are in the public domain, and we actually could directly copy and paste from them without quoted attribution if we wanted to. Despite that, each time the author directly quotes the text of the sources, they appear to correctly place them in direct quotes with accompanying citations and page numbers.

Suggest the nominator have a cup of tea, and refresh their understanding of our deletion policy along with their assumptions of good faith. If you have a problem with the way an article is written, go fix it. If you have a problem with the criteria for acceptance at AfC, you're welcome to suggest changes. GMG ^talk 19:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as one of the people speeding these things out of AfC, and going after those of us who have concerns, it's clear you either don't understand the problems or share this user's POV. This is not simply a cleanup issue, and it's not appropriate to dump stuff like this in the 'pedia expecting others to find it and dedicate massive amounts of time to rewriting things that aren't even significant enough to be covered in the main articles about these tribes (that this user doesn't seem to even read). The presence of some good sources doesn't make up for all the misrepresentations, misinformation, and other concerns happening here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand deletion policy, and AfD isn't cleanup. If you have a problem with the way the article is written, fix it. If you can't or won't, then tag the article if you must, and let someone else do it. "The presence of some good sources" is what determines notability. And for the record, the fact that you are apparently deleting images of newspaper articles from 1836 (file, original) as having no permission makes me seriously wonder whether you understand deletion policy at all. That combined with the fact that you typed this entire nomination out, and only after an hour, and an out of process deletion of this page did you realize twinkle doesn't make you type out rationales for G12 nominations. Hmm. So in case I haven't been abundantly clear, I seriously suspect you need to chill out, slow down, stop harassing the author of this article, and refresh your understanding of policy. GMG ^talk 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant to do this as a speedy but Twinkle is being weird. Sorry for any hiccups. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick and tired of cleaning up after this editor and also of the copy vios ^[1] This is getting beyond ridiculous. This article shifts between fifth grade level and passages ripped from articles and books just like every other article he's added and every single time his articles get approved without checking them. This particular one is full of blatant inaccuracies and makes the wiki look pathetic. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Delete btw, if it wasn't clear. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=The+Pawnee+capture+of+the+Cheyenne

You do realize that Revolvy is a Wikipedia mirror? GMG ^talk 20:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I get home I will link to the books then that the particular copy vios come from. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know why anyone would want to keep the article nor do I understand why repeated approval is given for articles with inaccurate content. I mean, the remaining two arrows were repatriated over a century ago and the article states differently. One would think that there would be a consensus for well written, accurate and true information without copy violations. Why not simply redirect to the Cheyenne article and I will add a small accurate bit about the bundle that is free of plagiarism. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Cheyenne - The only usable sources are already in that article, along with accurate contextual history and cultural information. Simple enough to add the only accurate content there, and I trust Indigenous girl to do it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are copyright violations, we should remove them. I've already checked two of the most cited sources in the article, and they have no issues, and are public domain besides. If there are inaccuracies, we should correct them. That's the way Wikipedia works. Given that your "sick and tired" consists of two edits to Arikara scouts, and that appears to be the only article this user has ever written that you have touched at all, I have fairly limited sympathy with your apparent exasperation. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. We do not delete articles for not being completely accurate and impeccably written, we improve those articles so that they are. There is no obligation for you to do so if you do not wish to. But we do not delete articles because you do not wish to improve them. We delete articles because they lack significant coverage in secondary sources. There has so far been no argument here whatsoever that this is the case, and as it stands, both your !votes should be disregarded entirely by the closer for making no valid argument for deletion. GMG ^talk 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't A Companion to Custer and the Little Big Horn cited? ^[1] I'd like to know. I'll go through more books tomorrow. Have you actually read the article? It's completely nonsensical. I really feel it would be best merged with the Cheyenne article. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno why that particular source isn't used. What I can tell you is that having committed all of half an hour to it, I was able to find all but two sources available online, only one of which requires a journal subscription. GMG ^talk 13:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask why it wasn't used, it was. I asked why it wasn't cited.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless you've spotted a direct unattributed or misattributed quote that I've so far missed, it's not entirely clear how one might determine this was used in particular over another similar source. But if you feel it will improve the verifiability of the article, feel free to add it when appropriate. GMG ^talk 16:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sufficient minimal, reliable, sources to satisfy the minimum required on notability grounds, as noted by GMG. Copyvio accusations need to be clearly made, a general accusation isn't sufficient, especially when overview tools like Earwig don't indicate a breach. Inability to access sources, via paywalls, offline etc does not invalidate them. Quality accusations are the most grounded, but as is always made clear, aren't grounds for article deletion. Saying you could add shorter accurate detail to another article isn't sufficient, if the article could legitimately stand as-is. Nosebagbear (talk)

"One would think that there would be a consensus for well written, accurate and true information without copy violations." (Indigenous Girl) - sure, there is a consensus that this is better, but there is formal consensus that a breach of the first three aspects are not sufficient for removal - a rough consensus here would not be enough to overrule that. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable subject that warrants an article that has numerous references meeting WP:GNG. ps. as for the article being so inaccurate/badly written that it should be deleted, instead you can always be bold, reduce it to 2 or 3 sentences, keep the references and/or add a "further reading" section, so other editors may expand it later. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasoning of GMG. I am convinced.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is a copyvio, it is not obvious (Earwig does not show anything). Article could be improved - but is not at TNT level. The subject itself (Cheyenne magic/sacred/medicine arrows) is clearly notable - beyond the sources in the article, the event (and subsequent searches for the arrows) is covered in RSes in a before. In as much as language needs to be updated to contemporary sources - that not a deletion rationale - nor is labelling sources as "antiquated, offensive sources".Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overabundance[edit]

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

Fails MOS:DABMENTION and WP:DABDIC. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tagged as G6 for being an orphaned disambigious page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've declined the speedy, since technically the page doesn't qualify, but I agree that, since it's basically just a list of dictionary definitions, this dab page isn't useful, per nom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is purely WP:DICDEF, and decidedly not a disambiguation page. — Gorthian (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gorthian. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to wiktionary. Everybody agrees the front-facing content of this page should be removed, so this should work nicely. I don't think there's a good reason to delete the page first, but do correct me if I'm wrong. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plethora[edit]

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

All targets violate MOS:DABMENTION, there is no specialized use of the word in wikipedia. Also WP:DABDIC. This DAB has been deleted 5 times. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DAB with a company without an article, a random DAB and a random article. Following this logic, I could add Elephant to this page. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tagged as speedy delete, G6 for being an orphaned disambigious page, A11 for being an ad, A1 for being a page of no notability. I suspect it's a thinly vailed ad for the Plethora Corporation mentioned in the article (last in the list)--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've declined the speedy, as I don't think any of those criteria apply. That said, I don't see the use of this page, per nom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this borders on DicDef, and fails DABMention. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Flushing (physiology) if a reliable source were found and incorporated into the article to fulfill DABmention. MarginalCost (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The page receives over sixty views a day [6], so it definitely is something that readers are searching for. The title seems to meet the criteria for becoming a soft redirect to wiktionary. The only thing giving me pause is the fact that at least some of the more specialised meanings of "plethora" are covered here on wikipedia: the OED gives the obsolete meaning of "overabundance of one or more humours" (the concept doesn't appear to be treated at Humorism), as well as the contemporary meanings "excessive volume of blood (hypervolaemia or, now rarely, polycythaemia)", and "excessive fullness of blood vessels". The question is whether we'll be serving our readers best by having a dab page listing a few obscure medical meanings, or redirecting them to wiktionary. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Plethora Corporation was rejected as insufficiently notable, but apparently Plethora Records is an imprint of Obese Records. If, as comments on the talk page suggest, this word was used to refer to Flushing (physiology), that article should be edited to indicate the fact. A weak argument can be made that disambiguation is useful. On the other hand, a (similarly weak) argument can be made that a partial name matches and passing mentions are not in the spirit of DAB pages. A soft redirect to Wiktionary might be best, unless Flushing (physiology) or some other pages specifically mention Plethora. Cnilep (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make a soft redirect to Wiktionary, to help those who are trying to find out what the word means. But this is no kind of disambiguation page, nor is one needed right now. — Gorthian (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary, as per Gorthian.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary seems like a good option here. Definitely not worth as a dab. ansh 666 07:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (soft) to Wiktionary as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Since both of the list entries fail MOS:DABMENTION, the dictionary definition is the primary topic. — Newslinger talk 09:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the keep reasons provide any sort of notability or any policy-based reasons for inclusion, so that leaves us with deletion as really the only option here. ansh 666 07:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The B-Team (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Not notable. Zero accomplishments/championships. Only notability are the two subjects in the team. WP:TOOSOON. Sekyaw (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They've racked up plenty of wins against the likes of The Hardys, Dean Ambrose and Heath Slater & Rhyno over the past year. They seem to be primed for a push and are over, and if anything, they deserve and article for all the work they did with The Miz, which was all over Raw last year. -- Ducktech89 ^(talk), 5:23, 15 July 2018, (UTC)

Keep - Per above. The B-Team has earned so many wins and losses as part of the Miztourage before getting a "breakup breakout" by being undefeated since splitting up with The Miz. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 23:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as they now hold the Raw Tag Team Championships so the "no championships/accomplishments" argument no longer holds water, nor does the "no notability as an established team" argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurnerMagic (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - won the WWE Raw Tag Team Championship at Extreme Rules (2018) Krishfiji^Talk 12:50, 16 July 2018 (GMT +12)

Strongly Keep - Have been a long running team, over several iterations and have won the tag titles AM Woody (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per tag team championship reign. RF23 (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted, without winning these tag team championships, they aren't independently notable. We should really establish more of a criteria for cases like these. An AfD recently went through for the team they beat for the championships, so not exactly a straight forward case. Being a champion doesn't guarentee notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most likely because Hardy and Wyatt literally formed two months ago. The B-Team (not counting The Social Outcasts) has been around for a year now and they've had time to gel as a unit and they appear to be over. As much as I like Hardy and Wyatt, they were a much better fit as rivals, their team seems to be contrived and crowd reaction seems to reflect this. The B-Team even got a big pop when they won at Extreme Rules. --Ducktech89 ^(talk), 11:30, 17 July 2018, (UTC)

Ducktech89 a pop does not make an article notable. Nor does the amount they are over. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep => Tag Team Champions on Raw--TheGoldenRule (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - per tag team championship reign and their win at Extreme Rules, this will only lead to a significant level of notability and they've been around long enough to have their own Wikipedia entry. Also pointing out the fact that if they hold a record with the championships, they would have also met set requirements for an article deeming it as noteworthy, therefore I say keep the article up. --Pokkeballs17 ^(talk), 15:28, 17 July 2018, (GMT)

Pokkeballs17. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. We require them to notable as of now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing any policy based reasons for keeping. They have been together, yes. They won the championship, yes. Do they meet the standards set in WP:GNG, no. All coverage is routine. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. All coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Nikki♥311 22:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I mistakenly clicked on close but reverted it. Those in favor of keeping should please address the concerns that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability, considering that there is no notability guideline that confers automatic notability to teams that won a championship. That said, for further comments consider whether a redirect/merge to the championship might be a potential alternative to deletion per WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - They are the Tag Team Champions. --TheVaughano (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Despite being the current champions, there is still insufficient coverage on the team. The Heath Slater and Rhyno article was deleted despite the duo being the then-current and first-ever SmackDown champions. The current info mainly includes WP:ROUTINE match results and does not meet WP:GNG. Sekyaw (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage; the fact that they won a tag team championship doesn't matter much. The list of tag team champions that got their articles deleted is endless. Heath Slater and Rhyno was cited as an example to keep but that article was deleted twice at AfD.LM2000 (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: This is a terrible reason to delete a article. Just because other stuff existed at one point doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for deletion is that it fails GNG, like a bunch of other similar subjects.LM2000 (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Axel and Dallas have been teaming together for the better part of 3 years in 3 different groups (Social Outcasts, Miztourage, B Team)...wasn't like they were just slapped together last week, there's some established history plus now a tag title reign. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've already said plenty about this notion of constantly giving undue weight to something merely because it's what's happening now in the WWE. Speaking of which: back when wrestling promotions focused primarily or solely on live events and ran them full time, "The B-Team" had an entirely different meaning. Those promotions which ran more than one event per night would have a "B-team" which predominantly worked the smaller shows. As this is referred to in Glossary of professional wrestling terms, you run the risk of once again misleading readers into thinking that what's happening now in the WWE is all that matters. If this is kept (which I doubt will happen), there should at least be a hatnote to this effect. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Doubt will happen"? It's 10-4 in favor of keep (as it stands now), so I'd rethink that. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page you should consult would be at WP:VOTE. However, that's avoiding my point that the article title is incongruous with existing content, which in itself affirms my original point about undue weight. If we're going to be The Church of What's Happening Now, I would at least expect to see Flip Wilson at the pulpit (yes, I'm old). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- And don't forget the nWo B-Team. Both non-WWE B-teams are more notable than this one.LM2000 (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per a lot of reasons above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because "they are the Tag Team Champions" does not mean they are notable enough for an article. The team that they won the championship from, The Deleters of Worlds, was recently closed as delete, and there isn’t much difference with this team; barely any notable coverage and only one championship win. I agree that it is WP:TOOSOON. JJClbsnn (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ - I have commented on this before the re-entry opened and I will say it again, what a nonsense reason to raise an AfD. They're evidently listed as the tag team champions on WWE.com, and WWE recognise them as a team. Not having them on here would be silly. They deserve a page because of all their work over the last two years or so, first of all with the Miztourage and then their work as The B-Team. It would be a shame if this got deleted before SummerSlam, as they have a heavy chance of competing there due to their work and feuds as the tag team champions on the Raw brand. Oh, and we have more users favouring keep than those favouring delete, so I think the argument in question is settled really. --Pokkeballs17 ^(talk), 20:30, 23 July 2018, (GMT)

Striking duplicate - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz, thanks for reverting my inadvertent blanking. I'm not sure what I meant to do there, I don't have any recollection of that edit. LM2000 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:They've been teaming for years.Muur (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like the above said, they've been teaming long before they were the B-team and they've won tag team titles 2600:1700:AA10:9940:80C8:DF66:BC70:F5BA (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than going by different team names, they are not a long-running, historical tag team. They have been an active duo for one year. Within that year, they have had zero accomplishments and, as shown in the article, barely any notable coverage before winning the championship. Sekyaw (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sekyaw Zero accomplishments? They have won the Tag Team Championship. Winning a championship is an accomplishment... right? --TheVaughano (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheVaughano Like I said, zero accomplishments and barely any notable coverage "before winning the championship". It is their first title reign and before that they have had little notable success, as shown in the article. Sekyaw (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As mentioned above, there is no notability guideline that states that a team that has been together for a certain amount of time or held a championship is automatically notable above and beyond the individual members. At this time, a team must meet WP:GNG in order to be notable. This team does not have significant coverage in reliable independent sources other than WP:ROUTINE match results. There is a precedent of deleting teams that don't meet GNG, even if they have held championships: Heath Slater and Rhyno, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth, Air Boom, Angelina Love and Winter, etc. Nikki♥311 00:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in the media. see here Krishfiji (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2018 (GMT +12)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional toxins[edit]

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

Article only has 2 references, both of them primary. The rest is unreferenced, non-notable listcruft, with some examples being incredibly specific to the point non fans would not care, such as one off examples of video game items. Practically none of the listed items have their own standalone articles. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Reaction!: Chemistry in the Movies or Poison and Poisoning in Science, Fiction and Cinema. WP:LISTCRUFT is not policy. Andrew D. (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is splitting hairs, WP:LISTCRUFT implies that it is predominantly composed of WP:OR, which it is. The article is almost entirely original research and while a potentially notable topic in its own right, it would fare better as a new prose article than an indiscriminate unencyclopedic list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is even less noteworthy, less encyclopedic, than the already deleted "List of fictional medicines and drugs" ; see that AfD -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale by Dexterpointy, just as fancrufty as List of fictional medicines and drugs and List of comic book drugs. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- if anything, this is even cruftier and more poorly sourced than List of fictional medicines and drugs. Reyk _YO! 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic book drugs[edit]

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

List of fictional medicines and drugs was recently deleted under the agreed consensus that it was listcruft. This article is arguably even moreso as it focuses on a very specific subset of fictional drugs with the majority of references being primary, not secondary sources. It is packed full of non notable comic book trivia and belongs in various Wikia, not on Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons of the previous AfD. This was proposed to be merged into that article but now with it deleted, there is little need to save this one. Listcruft and poorly sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as The Greatest Drugs in Superhero Comic, A History of Drugs in Comic Books or Breaking Superbad. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited links don't appear to be reliable sources - or in any case suggest wider notability for the topic of comic book drugs beyond being something of interest to comic book fans. Two are "top-10" style lists, never a good sign for notability, and one is just a back-and-forth of site "contributors"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator seems to be suggesting that comic book fans are unpersons. This is absurd prejudice, especially when comic books are so dominant in popular culture now, being the basis for so many successful movies and TV shows. Our policy is that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and that this should be done "as far as possible, without editorial bias".
  - FYI, Two of the cited sources are recipients of Eisner Awards and Harvey Awards for comic journalism, the highest honors in the comic industry. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is a blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR : "6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" (Drugs × Fictional × Literature\Comics) -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If content is too detailed then this is addressed by merging up into broad summaries, rather than by deletion. But when the content gets lengthy, it is sensible to split it. Deletion is disruptive to such considerations because the material is no longer readily visible and attributable. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the opinion: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced listcruft. If anything, this is even more dismal than List of fictional medicines and drugs. Reyk _YO! 09:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11" (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Indoor Soccer League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any proof that this league ever played a game. Rogermx (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NFOOTY. Only link was to the leagues own page which now doesn't even work either. Was probably just advertising and should have been deleted back in 2010 and/or 2013 when it was tagged. NZFC^(talk) 21:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to a redirect, if anyone wants. ansh 666 07:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Pate Company[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional company profile that attempts to scrape notability from its owner Jerry Pate, and a broad scatter of passing mentions. Appears to fail company notability requirements by some margin. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just advertising material. I'd be happy to see it deleted. No indication that it's a notable golf course design company in any sense. Anything important can be added to the Jerry Pate page anyway, where the company gets a mention. Nigej (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: This company certainly has the notability for its own page, however, I will not argue against you in the sense that it parts of the article appear to be close to advertising. I am the creator and a major editor of the article, so I can assure you that it was not intentional by any means, I only want to create an article about a notable company out of my region. Any notes you have on how I can improve the article would be greatly appreciated :) --Navarre0107 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is a major design company in the Pensacola Bay Area, and has created or aided in the designing of over 20 golf courses across the country. In addition, they are a major player in politics in local, county, and regional governments (for example, it was representatives of this company that advocated for the chosen design for the rebuild of the Pensacola Bay Bridge that will be finished in 2021). I will not deny that parts of the article may need to be rewritten, but it certainly it certainly meets the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. --Navarre0107 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now before I state my opinion, it must be made clear that I have worked together with Navarre0107 on several Wikipedia projects (such as working together on Wikipedia:WikiProject Navarre, Florida and building the article for Equestria), so this might need to be taken with a grain of salt. While I do agree with Nigej that parts of the article appear to be very close to either plagiarizing some of the cited news articles or seem similar to advertising. However, it does appear that this article is a major company in the region, and appears notable enough for its own article--RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Regardless of where and how many golf courses they have designed they are just another company which designs golf courses Lyndaship (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they have designed a number of large and notable courses (see RainbowIsBestPony's discussion below), as well as acted as advocators and designers for major projects across Florida and the United States, heck, even a few across overseas? --Navarre0107 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Many professional golfers run golf course design companies (and indeed other golf related businesses: teaching, etc.) Generally we don't currently have articles for these companies. They sometimes get a mention in the player pages. The Jerry Pate Company article is in Category:Golf course architects, a category intended for individuals, because there is currently no Category:Golf course design companies (perhaps there should be). A look at Category:Golf course architects shows up Colt, Alison & Morrison Ltd and Tiger Woods Design as the only other companies in the category (correct me if I'm wrong). Mark Hayes (golfer), who died this week, has a "Business career" section about his golf course design and other commercial activities. My view is that, except in rare cases, this is sufficient. Has the Jerry Pate Company designed any particular notable golf courses? I suspect not. Seems to me to be just a local company like millions of others round the world. Nigej (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Discussion Regarding your question of "particular notable golf courses", I can check, is there a specific threshold for notability in that case that I should be checking for? --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one but most notable courses host notable tournaments. So hosting an important professional event or a top amateur tournament would qualify. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Discussion I checked their website, it certainly isn't just a local company, many of their courses aren't even in the state where they're based, one or two are outside the United States. Here are some of the larger and more notable courses their website says they've designed, Trump National Golf Course-Colt's Neck (Colts Neck Township, New Jersey), Schwanhof Golf Platz (Weiden, Germany), and Flagstaff Ranch Golf Course (Flagstaff, Arizona).--Navarre0107 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion They've also designed the landscape architecture and design to several locations that have either their own Wikipedia articles or have their own sections within other articles, such as, Spanish Trail Scout Reservation, Pensacola State College, Admiral Fetterman Field, MGM Park, and the terminal entry to Pensacola International Airport.--Navarre0107 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roohi Zuberi[edit]

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

This article should published in the Hindu WP. Some of the references are not written in English BrantleyIzMe (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOENG - "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia...English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available". However, that isn't a valid reason to delete the article. Chris857 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a translation into English should always accompany the citation/reference BrantleyIzMe (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No legitimate reason for deletion has peen presented so far, such as lack of notability. Edison (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no valid rationale for deletion presented. SportingFlyer talk 04:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia does not have any requirement that the sources be written in English — as long as (a) our article is written in English, and (b) the sources are reliable ones that support a credible notability claim, it doesn't matter what language the references are or aren't written in. There's this cool thing called Google Translate, y'see, and even if it ain't perfect there are plenty of Wikipedia contributors who are fluent in the Hindi or Urdu languages and can translate the sources for you if you need clarification. So no prejudice against renomination in the future if it can be shown that the sources actually don't support notability or aren't about her, but the language that the sources happen to be in is not a valid deletion rationale in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, waste of time. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Bearcat. 344917661X (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep language is not really a matter. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, No clear reason for deletion. Language should not be a hook for deleting. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe Mysteries[edit]

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

Series consisting of two entries. Unnecessary "main" article without any additional information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We generally only create series article when there has been at least 3 entries. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - General consensus is that a series article isn't appropriate unless there's at the very least 3 entries - otherwise, all information can just be put in one article or the other article generally. Seems to be the case here, as there's virtually no content here anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article was originally created to house the two games in the series before they had their own articles. Now that they've been expanded and split off, it's unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable internet trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - per nominator. No reliable sources either AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator As JimmyBlackwing said, I originally created this article to house both games, and as other editors have since split my work into articles for the seperate games, this page seems redundant. Make sure all its content is salvaged in one of the two articles before it gets deleted though. :)--Coin945 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this artocle isnt needed anymore. Per above discussionBabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Farjami[edit]

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

This article does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria for a living person. Rahiminejad (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user, who created the page on Wikipedia, is the same person whom the article covers. (see: Wikipedia polices on conflict of interests) Needless to say, the content is not backed by reliable independent sources. Also see: Information for "[| Leila Farjami]" and the contributions of Leilafarjami (user). Rahiminejad (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Absolutely no reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 11:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added WP:COI tags to Talk:Leila_Farjami and User talk:Leilafarjami. — Newslinger talk 11:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable and severe COI ie written by the subject herself. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrew Bayer. Given a seeming consensus for redirect, if the content has already been transferred a merge would seem unneeded (as I believe is indicated by nom) (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signalrunners[edit]

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

Non-notable group, barely contains any information, and no coverage online by any websites as far as I can see. Suggesting a merge to Andrew Bayer, who already has a page. aNode (discuss) 09:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Bayer. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage from reliable sources, no appearances on music charts, and no critical attention. — Newslinger talk 11:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeahh, that could work! I've already added coverage on Signalrunners on the Bayer page, which actually covers more than the actual Signalrunners page. Adding Signal's discography to the Bayer page now. aNode (discuss) 13:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Bayer as per the above. Non-notable per source searches; doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2018#District 7. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Spanberger[edit]

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

I really hate that I have to do this again. I created a redirect for this non-notable political candidate, because it's a reasonable search term, but it is clear on the sources given that the subject is not notable per WP:GNG. Only coverage is about her candidacy, most sources in the article are not the in-depth coverage we look for. Fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate running for, but not holding, major office. If she wins, she's notable, but that election is four months away. I want the redirect restored, but I've grown weary of merely undoing the edits done after my redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2018#District 7 until/unless she actually wins the seat. All the cited coverage in the press is local, interview-based, prompted solely by the fact that she is the current Democratic candidate in that district, and frankly pretty much all the same story. She has no notability for anything prior to winning the nomination. The rest of the article is basically a delineation of her various campaign stances and endorsements. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as an adjunct to a campaign website. Having said that, I'm open to persuasion that the coverage she has received so far does qualify as passing GNG, but for now I'd say no. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2018#District 7. This is the usual outcome for candidates running for a federal (or national) office. Any pertinent information about the campaign can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the person who put together the page. I was wondering why this page would be taken down when the following are still up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Ortiz_Jones and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_McGrath Too Many Food Service Professionals (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Too Many Food Service Professionals: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I believe (without rechecking either of those pages) that they have much deeper sourcing than this candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Food Service Professionals, Amy McGrath was notable prior to the campaign as the first female Marine to fly in an F/A-18 on a combat mission and being admitted to the Aviation Museum of Kentucky Hall of Fame. While the coverage of Gina Ortiz Jones stems primarily from her campaign, note that, like that of Amy McGrath and unlike that of Abigail Spanberger, the coverage of her campaign and primary win was national, not merely local. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've taken a quick look at them both, I believe McGrath is notable, but I have doubts about Ortiz Jones. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ortiz Jones AfD was very contentious with many keep votes and was overturned to no consensus during a deletion review. I was a firm redirect, but hers was tricky because she received coverage beyond her local area. SportingFlyer talk 05:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per Enos733. See WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. Just like everyone else, she can get a page if and when she wins the election. Marquardtika (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're all coming from, but the race has been covered by national media. She was on the cover of Time a few months ago, has been on MSNBC three times, was profiled in Elle and Glamour and covered in the Washington Post, POLITICO, the Financial Times, NPR, RealClearPolitics and many others. Because Dave Brat defeated Eric Cantor people in the media are talking about how she can repeat history.

Would it help if I rewrote sections of the article to include more citations from national media? I'm happy to back this all up with links. - TooManyFoodServiceProfessionals

Redirect Restoring the redirect is proper and there probably needs to be a better way to do this than to keep taking redirected political articles to AfDs, since this will keep happening. SportingFlyer talk 05:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is not showing the depth of coverage it takes to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate — that requires coverage that explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions, and is not instantly passed by every candidate the moment one extralocal media outlet mentions her name — every single candidate who runs at all is always going to have her name mentioned in national media at least once or twice. Appearing on TV as an interview guest is not support for notability either, as that makes her the speaker and not the subject. Wikipedia's notability test is not "has she been in the news lately", it is "has she been in the news for reasons that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance" — the notability test is showing evidence that people will still be looking for this article in 2028 because she accomplished something, like winning the election and thereby holding office, that makes her permanently notable. Having an article about every single person whose name happens to get into the news cycle is not what we're here for, and the volume of coverage actually being shown here is not enough to make her a special case over and above most other candidates in most other districts who are also getting their names into the news cycle right now. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't think there's a need to maintain attribution, since it was split off originally and then moved back. ansh 666 07:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations that defend the Catholic Church's official teaching on homosexuality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Organisations that defend the Catholic Church's official teaching on homosexuality

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

This is a content fork from Catholic Church and homosexuality. The length of the section and the entire article do not justify spinning this off into its own article. If the section grows too big I would support a spinoff, but do not currently. BrianCUA (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Catholic Church and homosexuality, where this was split from. This is an unnecessary content fork that is best left in the main article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Creation of this article is inline with restructuring of main article. If this article is deleted then the content should not be restored in full as unbalances the main article and gives undue prominence to a minor aspect of the debate. The length of the new article is of a perfectly reasonable size and covers a number of organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contaldo's concern seems to have been addressed to his satisfaction in the main. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If this article was now to be merged back, then that would either result in removal of valuable content, or create a WP:UNDUE problem at the destination.
Indeed, I agree with User:Contaldo80.
Note: I think a renaming, from current "Organisations that defend the Catholic Church's official teaching on homosexuality", is needed. Maybe rename to "Organisations supporting the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality.", though that too isn't a great title. -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete That Catholic organizations promote Catholic positions is unremarkable, and this is just dead horse beating. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or revert split or whatever. If it's taking up too much of the main article, it should just be condensed there. It's very listy here (and may have been so there too, I don't remember) - it seems more appropriate to me to fit the "medical" organization's view in where we discuss the church's official position on homosexuality, and the Knights of Columbus's financial contributions to anti-marriage campaigns in where we discuss similar political lobbying by the official body of the church, than to bundle them into an "organizations" section or article of any kind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into Catholic Church and homosexuality#Defenders of official Church teaching.~~ All of the content in this nominated article is better relocated to the main article and the articles of each of these organizations. The nominated article is just an expanded list. Newslinger (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed. Newslinger (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above, Contldo's concerns seem to have been addressed. Now we have substantively the same content (minus a few subject headings) living in both places. This seems unnecessary, and I hold that we should delete the spinoff until the content in the main grows to the point where it becomes needed. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its "Contaldo80" - be more careful in respecting editors user names. I can live with this provided the section does not grow beyond what it currently is and that there are no sub-headings. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has already been merged. Newslinger (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Shokken[edit]

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

non-notable, no references. RJFJR (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this page, sales, number of branches, number of employees, etc are somewhat on the huge side. See for yourself. Am I exaggerating what's written there? If I'm not exaggerating what's written there, is what's written there credible? (It's certainly not a disinterested source, but do you think that there's a substantial risk that the company would falsify the information?) ¶ Of course, this is a crap way to evaluate notability. What we want are newspaper articles, etc. The are unlikely to be available other than via for-pay databases. Did you look there, RJFJR? -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be expanded from the corresponding article in Japanese at [7] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you jest, Eastmain. The article in Japanese is as bad as one expects from articles on corporations in ja:WP. Its rather dreary series of lists may seem impressively bulky till you realize that it includes such Nihonshokkencruft as a list of the TV programs that have been graced with the company's commercials. The article has a grand total of two (two) references, one of which is for mere trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and keep. "One of the world’s largest sauce and spice manufacturers". There are also a variety of hits for "Nippon Shokken". Dekimasuよ! 15:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A passing reference in a short local TV story -- probably sourced from a company press release, at that -- isn't really going to cut it as a source for such a (near) superlative. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a passing reference. The whole article is about the company. Dekimasuよ! 01:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a verifiably large corporation. A quick look in the 日経テレコン21 database shows over four hundred articles that are more or less about it; a recent example is 日本食研、台湾と中国に調味料新工場　需要拡大に対応, published on 26 June 2018 in 日経速報ニュースアーカイブ and 628 characters long. And 日経 is just one among several news conglomerates. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some relatively academic stuff, too: 生産財(業務用品)メーカーによるB to BとB to Cマーケティング : 日本食研ホールディングス株式会社の事例より. Dekimasuよ! 03:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible excuse for an article. While it's got potential -- I recognize the company products, and a billion dollars in revenue is nothing to sneeze at -- an article has to actually say SOMETHING (with reliable sources) or it's just a business-directory listing. So Move to Draft Space until it reaches even minimal standards for an article. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, Calton. I'd be happy to see this (and indeed thousands of articles) tossed into draft space. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just done some search on Factiva for this company - clearly this is a major notable company, with remarks like "the largest manufacturer/distributor of sauces in Japan". Obviously a large company with good market share, and a multinational presence. I've added some more detail to the article, and included some more references, I'm sure there's lots more sources in Japanese. If you go to the Japanese Wikipedia page for this company, you can see it is quite substantial. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the references haven't been produced. None of the Keep !voters have produced any references to meet the criteria for establishing notability - its no good saying "lots of links exist" without producing the links here. None of the Keep !voters have provided any reasons the article should be kept *based on policy and/or guidelines*. Saying its a "verifiably large corporation" isn't based on policy/guidelines. The academic stuff fails WP:RS. Doing research on Factiva without producing citations is not useful for a closing admin. All we've really learned is that it is a really large company (and therefore one would expect lots of references) but it doesn't have references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Odd as that might be, the topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to have been links given up above for English sources that were ignored, but at any rate, a basic Google news search for the company yields over 750 results in Japanese. Here are some links, then: The Nikkei [8] [9] [10] Mainichi Shimbun [11] Sankei [12] Ehime Shimbun [13] [14] [15] [16]. Dekimasuよ! 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2018. If any editor is absolutely horrified that this article hasn't been deleted but redirected, feel free to land up on my talk page and give me a piece of your mind; I just might reverse the close (well, if you do it nicely). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Raybould[edit]

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

This person is not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. She holds elected office, but not a major one covered by NPOL. She is running for federal office and has some coverage from that campaign, but not enough to establish notability beyond being a candidate for office. Most of the inline citations are to WP:PRIMARY sources, like her campaign website and the website for the Douglas County Democrats. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve, as I believe that Raybould is a famous person as is. There are several articles about her (11 of which are cited in the Wikipedia page). She has a lot of influence over Nebraska, given that her family runs a chain of stores. If the page is ultimately deleted, I propose a new page be created in its place on the Raybould family, because the family arguably has the most importance in Nebraska, rather than just one person being a Senate Nominee. Moreover, per WP:NPOL, she has received significant press coverage as a politician (Lancaster County Commissioner and Lincoln City Councilwoman), as the aforementioned 11 articles convey. I would argue that she is a "Major local politician" given she has served one of the most populated cities/counties in Nebraska in two separate positions. Lastly, considering how many now-irrelevant U.S. Senate Nominees with no other political experience have pages on them (such as Lois Combs Weinberg and Dwight Grotberg, among dozens of others), there is no reason Jane Raybould should be removed. Redditaddict69 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]
Redirect to the federal office election page - I think this is closer than most we redirect, but I can't find any good independent sources/articles on her to get her over the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer talk 08:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is close, but there aren't enough good sources to cover this person fairly and coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I don't see a good merge candidate, so I think a redirect would be confusing for readers. Daask (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lincoln NE isn't a global city for the purposes of making her notable as a city councillor, and being a non-winning candidate for higher office is not a notability freebie either — if she does not already have a strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons, then she has to win election to a state or national office, not just be a candidate for it, to clear WP:NPOL. In extremely rare special cases, a candidate might receive so much media coverage that we keep her on pure WP:GNG grounds — but that doesn't automatically happen just because some campaign coverage exists, because some campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election. To pass GNG on pure "media coverage exists" grounds, the coverage has to mark her candidacy out as special for some reason, like the explosion of international coverage that Christine O'Donnell got which has managed to make her article twice as long and three times as well-sourced as the article about the actual senator she lost to. But more than half of the references here are primary sources that do not support notability at all, and once those are taken out of the equation the media coverage left over is not enough to make her more special than every other candidate everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Maybe a section could be created in the United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2018 page. It would at least need to outline who Raybould was in the election, such as her position in Nebraska as a businessowner and a Democrat running as a sleeper candidate. Or, a Sleeper candidate page could be created, with Raybould's name in as an example. Redditaddict69 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve^. (Struck revote.) Going back to my original comment on preserving the article, Gary Trauner is another Congressional Nominee with no other major political experience with a page on Wikipedia. Redditaddict69 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from trying to create an article about absolutely anything or anybody who exists at all, so the existence of any article about a superficially similar topic is never in and of itself a valid reason why another article gets a guaranteed inclusion freebie. Gary Trauner, in fact, may need to be deleted as well — but his inclusion or exclusion is irrelevant to whether Jane Raybould qualifies or not, because each article is evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof: "if he has an article then she has to have an article too" is not a thing. Also, you do not get to revote more than once: you can comment as many times as you like, but you do not get to preface any further comments with a bolded restatement of the vote you've already given. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only claim to notablity is being a member of the Lincoln city council, but Lincoln is not a big enough city to make members of the city council default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the major party nominee for a US Senate election, Raybould should have a well-sourced and factually correct page so that voters have the ability to make an informed decision. Narayansg (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to post election information. SportingFlyer talk 16:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2018. This is the usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for federal office. Much of the data on the subject's page is already on the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views currently split between "delete" and "redirect" - see if a compromise can be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment In AfD's like this, I often comment that I would be fine with a redirect to the relevant target article. I didn't in this nomination, but I would indeed have no problem with a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepali Junjappa[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails notability guidelines for creative authors/writers, and WP:ANYBIO, as well as general notability criteria. No scope for salvation. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the author of multiple notable shows, the subject appears to meet WP:CREATIVE criterion #3, although we need better verification for that than just IMDB. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Lacks references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above or with a positive outlook just WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Para (Special Forces). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army Para (Special Forces) selection[edit]

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

The content is based on hearsay and few notable sources. The content seems to be misleading. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per my statement Talk:Para_(Special_Forces)#Proposed_merge_with_Indian_Army_Para_(Special_Forces)_selection, I believe this page must be selectively merged into Para (Special Forces). IMO, there is not enough information on this topic to merit a page on it's own but can contain a small section in the other page. This was nominated to XFD since the creator and I were unable to reach a consensus for the merge. A set of new eyes or the community in general can decide. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and later copy edit to remove redundant info. Agree with Adam. --DBig Xray 21:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. There seems a rough agreement that redirect is correct, especially as nom's delete grounds noted no individual notability outside the band, suggesting a redirect would be in order (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Cowan[edit]

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

Does not appear to have achieved notability outside the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. Laun chba ller 17:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wishes to preserve this article's inclusion on Wikipedia needs to find sources to establish notability, or else it should be deleted. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band – it's the only notable group that he played in, but it was during their period of greatest success, and he was an integral member of the band at that point. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band - No references and its the only article that makes him slightly notable. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" comments are mostly totally unrelated to Wikipedia's notability standards: e.g. "attracts thousands of attendees" and "has been paramount in bringing financial education and uniting those who want to spread this in the world". The one reason which does refer to the relevant notability concept, namely "Major media mentions", turns out to mean brief passing mentions and non-independent and/or unreliable sources such as press releases. The "delete" comments, meanwhile, are directly related to the notability guidelines. (Incidentally, "it passed" in the previous AfD means that the discussion was closed as "no consensus" with two participants in favour of deletion and one for keeping, the latter being the creator of the article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FinCon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. No reliable sources in the article, and all Google search results are from non-notable blogs affiliated with the conference, or are blog articles written by conference attendees regarding the conference. (Note that this is a blogging conference.) Newslinger (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Been through this before less than a year ago and it passed... The conference attracts thousands of attendees with a combined reach of tens of millions of monthly online audience. Major media mentions. Chicago Tribune, Entrepreneur, AARP, Mic, Fox Business, Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall but Google says mention is there), NASDAQ, Forbes, press releases, Business Insider, Parade, CBS News, Huffington Post, could keep going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: According to his user page, Eric1985 (talk · contribs) runs a financial marketing blog. A site-scoped Google search of the blog reveals dozens of promotional posts for FinCon, as well as an interview with the founder of FinCon. As Eric1985 is the article creator, this is a clear conflict of interest that strongly suggests WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tagged Talk:FinCon with {{connected contributor}} and User talk:Eric1985 with {{uw-coi}}. Newslinger (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources offer significant coverage of the conference. Newslinger (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This conference has been paramount in bringing financial education and uniting those who want to spread this in the world. It would be a disservice to the USA and to humanity if this were to be deleted. KEEP FITCON! — Maxmymoney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep This conference is instrumental in bringing together personal finance authors, bloggers, podcasters, vloggers, CFPs, financial advisors, and members of the media. Keep, and let's flesh it out further! — Jackieaz68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep This is one of the only conferenes that focuses on money and media. It has strong attendance that has continued to grow. It attracts major media, online publishers, most major finance brands, and more. — Rfarring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:NEVENT; significant RS coverage not found. The above "Keep" votes are by SPAs. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel a need to tackle the barrage of sources. They are an interesting mix of Sig Cov failures (average length 3 lines, Fox News seemed longest with 8), not actually a link to a relevant article, pure listing info (in the form of just saying they exist) and traditional unreliable sources. None of WP:NORG, WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG are satisfied. ~~I've not myself checked the COI and SPA situation, but if so I would also advise a SPI check.~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed it myself, but a SPI check is already underway, in any case Nosebagbear (talk)

Delete Vanishingly little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble to the Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania[edit]

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

Article violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Wikipedia is not a reference guide or depository for legal documents. The article can be about the Statute, but not a literal showing of the statute. This article belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not much to merge to Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania - well - very small part of the lede (chapter title). And we would not want a redirect (probably).Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 17:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Elist[edit]

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

Near-certain autobiography. The subject's three cited papers were published in a predatory open access journal. The signature claim is backed entirely by reprints of an obvious press release (aka churnalism). Oh, and in case you thought it wasn't spam? Penis enlargement. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have said delete - but he does have articles about his innovative penis surgery in Huffington Post, Daily Mail, Cosmopolitan, mamamia and a few others. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DAILYMAIL for why that's not an acceptable source. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable specialist and inventor in Penis augmentation with lasting coverage - e.g. 1995 1996 to 2016 2016 2016 2018. International coverage - [17][18]. While penis augmentation is perhaps not a field widely covered in scholarly sources, it is definitely covered in popular ones in a manner sufficient for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be my native cynicism, but those all look like churnalism to me. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GQ piece is a full length feature (with dedicated reporter+photographer - they even observed a surgery - so that piece is not churnalism).[19]Icewhiz Heck, he's the only FDA approved (per recent sources) reasonable penile augmentation surgery out there But until Elist—an affable Iranian-born father of three with a mischievous, slightly goofy laugh—got FDA clearance for his implant in 2004, the only procedures available for growing a man’s manhood were temporary, or potentially damaging, or disgusting, or all three.. (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz, you would rely on GQ to learn about the history of medicine? Really? (real question). See this review and this review and this review of the history of penile implants. Elist's name is not mentioned in any of them. And no, "his" device is not the only game in town. This list includes just the 510Ks (the list is broader than implants but has them all); this list does not of course include PMAs or devices available in the EU under a CE mark. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, GQ is not a good source for medical history (I did not attempt to verify the veracity of this claim). However, a full feature in GQ (plus other such articles elsewhere) is an indication that this individual passes GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm no expert, but the coverage does appear to be... er, sizeable. Basie (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant promotional page about a run of the mill doctor. Jeez oh man. If somebody wants to try to write a decent article they can try; this is industrial waste that has been dumped in our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believe has generated enough coverage to meet our General Notability Guidelines, as shown by a Google News search shown here [20]. Additionally, definitely qualifies under Creative professionals, And Yes, I am taking an enlarged liberal interpretation of the category, (Yes PUN, intended}, of criteria #1 & 2, as shown here at Google Scholar [21]. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; this is promotionalism only on a nn individual. Sources offered at this AfD are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plain and obvious promotional tract. Chisme (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I’m sorry to disagree here, but passing mentions do not typically have over a 800 cities in Google Scholar papers, as shown here, [22].
Delete - promotional. Single claim to fame is having a plastic surgery practice that offers a "customizable" penis implant. Article is entirely self-serving, for "the world's first subcutaneous penile implant for the treatment and cosmetic correction of soft tissue deformities" (obvious adspeak). --Leflyman^Talk 02:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources cover his "Penuma" product (which appears to be notable) in detail, but not the person himself. A redirect to Penuma can be created after the article is written. — Newslinger talk 09:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at a couple of the most promising references. USN&WR is a directory listing. The HuffPost article looks reasonable, but it's not enough by itself, and anyway, it's about the device, not the person, so doesn't support a WP:BLP. The rest of the sources are garbage. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 07:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Namio Harukawa[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Shritwod (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's had 108k views in 3 years, which strongly suggests notability. Do we have a porn/erotica sorting list? This is where he fits. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not show notability. We do not keep articles based on how often they are viewed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest merging somewhere, but I am not sure where. We don't seem to have a list.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's on a couple of lists already - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Namio_Harukawa. Body worship seems to be the only article. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge (to where?) or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ARTIST & GNG, Page views are irrelevant at AFD and there's nowhere appropriate to merge so our best option is delete. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. No significant coverage of the artist himself from reliable sources, although he did have one notable exhibit in the Museum of Eroticism. I've added a sentence mentioning his exhibit into that article. — Newslinger talk 12:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliably sourced to here. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is by an anonymous (former) member of roomantic, which accepts user submissions without editorial control. How is this a reliable source? Vexations (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I kept an open mind, but after scanning ten uncomfortable Google pages in the search results, I added the only mainstream coverage I could find. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jacquelyn Ottman. If any editor wishes to merge useful contents over and above this redirect, the history of the original article is that a way (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Trash Could Talk[edit]

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

Self-published book fails WP:NB notability guideline. Alternative to deletion was considered, but a redirect to Jacquelyn A. Ottman was undone by the creator. The author is probably not notable either. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The author, Jacquelyn Ottman, is notable (at least this discussion deemed her so). The book itself, only marginally so, and this article is clearly overly promotional, although that could be addressed if independent sources could be found. I feel that any sources related to Ottman's own Green Living activities (i.e. GreenMarketing.com and WeHateToWaste.com) are not valid sources for reviews or coverage of this book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Jacquelyn Ottman. Book itself is non-notable. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hemispherx Biopharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google News archive reveals only press releases. Sources cited in article lack depth. See WP:ORGDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oragen. Daask (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rintatolimod - All of the coverage of this company is either WP:ROUTINE, or relates to what appears to be its sole product, the drug Ampligen® (generic name Rintatolimod). The company's role with their drug is already sufficiently documented on that page, and I don't see any coverage that would suggest the company is notable outside of their role with the drug, so I would suggest an analogy to WP:ONEEVENT applies. It is likely anyone who searches for the company's name is interested, one way or another, in the information presented on the drug's page, so a redirect seems the best way to go. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports
1. Mahajan, Snehal (2015-04-13). "13 April 2015: Diligence and Valuation Report: Hemisphere Biopharma, Inc". Arrowhead Business and Investment Decisions. Archived from the original on 2018-07-12. Retrieved 2018-07-12.
  This is a 26-page analyst report about the company.
  The report says:
  Any opinions expressed in this report are statements of Arrowhead BID’s judgment to this date and are subject to change without notice.
  This report was prepared for general circulation and does not provide investment recommendations specific to individual investors. As such, any of the financial or other money-management instruments linked to the Company and Company valuation described in this report, hereafter referred to as “the securities”, may not be suitable for all investors.
  Investors must make their own investment decisions based upon their specific investment objectives and financial situation utilizing their own financial advisors as they deem necessary.
  The report has a business overview section with these subsections:
  1. Product Offerings
  2. Company Premiums
  3. Company Risks
  4. Corporate Strategy
  5. Shareholding Pattern
  6. Listing and Contact Details
  Here is the company overview:
  Company Overview: Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hemispherx Biopharma Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Hemispherx” or “the Company”) is a specialty pharmaceutical company primarily engaged in the clinical development of new drug therapies based on natural immune system enhancing technologies for the treatment of viral and immune based chronic disorders. The Company has two flagship products, 1) Alferon N Injection® - approved for a category of STD infections; 2) Ampligen® - an experimental Ribonucleic Acid developed to treat viral diseases and disorders of the immune system, specifically Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The Company is also developing an oral formulation of Alferon N, Alferon® LDO (Low Dose Oral), for treating Influenza. The Company has formed collaborations with many research laboratories to examine if Ampligen® and/or Alferon® exhibits antiviral activity against the Ebola virus & testing Ampligen® in humans in conjunction with a nasal flu vaccine. The Company owns and exclusively operates a Good Manufacturing Practice manufacturing facility in New Jersey.
  The analyst report lists five categories of company risks and provides a paragraph of discussion for each: (1) Unsuccessful Product Development, (2) Uncertainty related to regulatory approval, (3) Cash Flow Uncertainty, (4) Inadequate financial resources/Delay in Commercialization, (5) Reduction in the Incidence of Ebola Cases.
2. Bansal, Abhishek (2015-09-29). "29 September 2015: Diligence and Valuation Report: Hemisphere Biopharma, Inc" (PDF). Arrowhead Business and Investment Decisions. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-07-12. Retrieved 2018-07-12.
  This is another analyst report from Arrowhead Business and Investment Decisions.
3. This 3 October 2014 article^archive.is from StreetInsider notes:
  Chardan Capital affirms its Buy rating and $3 price target on Hemispherx BioPharma (AMEX: HEB) following a recent company update and expanded Ebola collaborations.
  Analyst Ling Wang offered the following commentary:
  HEB expanded research on potential Ebola treatments to five Institutional collaborators. The five collaborators include National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID); a branch of the NIH; the United States Army Research Institute in Infectious Disease (USAMRIID); the Swiss Department of Defense (Spiez Lab); Howard University, Washington, DC; and a US-based facility with biosafety
  level 4 (BSL-4) capabilities with whom a Sponsor Research Agreement is currently being negotiated. Recall HEB has previously announced a collaboration with the USAMRIID for exploring Alferon against the deadly Ebola virus.
  [Several more paragraphs.]
4. This article^WebCite from the company notes:
  Philadelphia, PA, Thursday, September 09, 2004: Griffin Securities announced today that it has initiated research coverage of Hemispherx Biopharma (AMEX: HEB - News) with a Buy Rating and a 12-month price target of $9.19. Chrystyna Bedrij, Director of Research, issued the report.
  This is an analyst report from Griffin Securities about Hemisphere Biopharma.
5. This forum post^WebCite from boursorama.com provides information from a Maxim Group analyst report written by analyst Yale Jen and published in April 2011.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hemisphere Biopharma to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough coverage about Hemispherx Biopharma's history, products (Alferon N Injection®, Ampligen®, and Alferon®), premiums, and risks to justify a separate article from Rintatolimod (Ampligen), one of its products.
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Cunard's analyst reports, meets the criteria for establishing notabilty, passes WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CORP with Cunard's analyst reports. — Newslinger talk 12:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against an early re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)[edit]

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

Small article, with half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article. The other half is minor, niche considerations that haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years. -Pmffl (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have too many non-encyclopedic articles about technical details and this one is also redundant. wikitigresito (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been relisted per the latest deletion review (diff) pending further consensus. @RoySmith, Excelsiorsbanjo, Sandstein, Hobit, Reyk, SportingFlyer, Godsy, DGG, and Stifle:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC); updated 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Why have you only pinged those three people? If you want to notify the DRV participants you should notify all of them. Hut 8.5 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All pinged Hut 8.5. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this article is very out of date and hasn't been properly updated in seven years (which is a long time in web development). This can be seen by comparing the article against Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), which has a duplicate of the first section which has been kept up to date. The two are very different because browsers have improved support for the various features since 2011 and one major browser isn't listed at all because it didn't exist back then. If the rest of the article is similarly out of date then it's misleading the readers. It should be moved to draft space until someone can check the whole thing for accuracy and update as necessary. Hut 8.5 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move: if you want these types of comparisons deleted, nominate everything in Category:Browser engine comparisons. (Yes, I'm blatantly invoking WP:OSE here, because this is ridiculous.) This page should be renamed to drop the "web" part, given the rest of that category. Modernponderer (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix' There's no reason to dratify anarticle in order to add and update information, Draftification is needed when the article needs reorganization, or has fundamental problems, especially when there is doubt that it can ever be improved to be acceptable. Draftification has significant overhead, and is unnecessary for the sort of changes needed here . As for whether it would anyway be suited for eletion, see the argument just above. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: any tidbits of info still useful should be added to the web typography article in its File formats section. There's not much to move there, though, since these tables are sparse and dated. (Of the 4 engines listed, only 2 are still active. That's why I nominated this clunker of an article for deletion in the first place. I didn't think to just merge it into the other article back then, so that would be a better resolution.) -Pmffl (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And that article that has linked to this one for the past 8+ years and still does isn't dated? Why're you voting for delete when you are saying a merge would be more appropriate? Merges do not require deletion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I incorrectly used the 'delete' label when I should've stated 'merge'. I've now corrected it. -Pmffl (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but encourage merging. "Small" is a very poor reason to delete, especially when there is an overlapping article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the related articles. Tag the material as needing an update, as appropriate. The CSS section should go to Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), the rest to Web typography#File formats. This is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - I changed mine to 'merge' above, since I proposed the same solution but had incorrectly labelled it 'delete'. So we're on the same page here. -Pmffl (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep this article, as it contains information present nowhere else. Updating and/or merging doesn't require deletion, and should at any rate take place before deletion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTN because there's significant coverage of browser support for typography features as a group or set (as seen on Ars Technica and CNET). The content of this page doesn't fit into any of the other "Comparison of browser engines" pages, because typography is distinct from HTML, CSS, and graphics. This article should immediately be moved to Comparison of browser engines (typography support) to match the naming convention of the other comparison pages, and also added to Template:Browser engines. — Newslinger talk 12:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Johnson[edit]

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

This subject gained attention due to a submission from him and his band to NPR's Tiny Desk Concert Series. The limited press mainly comes from that or as a result of that, but it is still quite limited. Doing a Google search, most of the few sources are from local newspapers, and the YouTube video sourced in the article, although done by a notable music critic, is not a reliable source. Andise1 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hobo Johnson has received press coverage and the album The Rise of Hobo Johnson charted on Heatseekers Albums. Here is another article with info that could be used [23]. Article needs clean-up and expansion. Meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Perhaps move/reformat page to be about the band. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charting on a Billboard chart in and of itself does not always mean a musician or band is notable. Also, the sources are primarily local (Sacramento) and aside from those I can find no sources from major, non-local news or music outlets. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Andise1 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up: As above keep said, Johnson's album charted on Billboard's up and coming artists list. Between NPR publicity and the local scene, he meets notability guidelines. I would quibble more about the "local" coverage, but the Bee is the flagship newspaper of a major city and one of the 30th largest papers in the United States. I can't see how a reformat would survive, as Lopes is the only notable member of the group. Still, the article is a mess and needs to be cleaned. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Etzedek24. Emily Khine (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After clarifications below, the consensus does seem to be deletion, with a lack of reliable sources to prove anything beyond this person's relation to others. ansh 666 17:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William d'Évreux[edit]

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

This individual seems to have no independent notability, and is being used as a coatrack for dubious claims of glorious ancestry by the Devereux family. WP:NOTGENEALOGY I have removed a lot of material (see Talk) that is either editorial speculation, not supported by the cited sources, or based on sources that are condemned by modern historians but what is left simply puts the person into their genealogical context: who their father and mother were, who he married, and who his daughter married. There is not a single non-genealogical biographical factoid. Almost all of this material is already found on the page of his father, who is unquestionably notable: Robert II (archbishop of Rouen). Thus I propose that this page be ~~merged~~ into that page. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows up in my research about this individual. If there is anything of value not already on his father's page, it can be merged there. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not keep articles on people who are just geneological placeholders. We need to show coverage of the people themselves. His daughter Judith d'Évreux and his father were both notable, although I still feel it would be nice to have an article on Judith that gives more dates and better coveras the 14 or so years of her marriage. We need articles that focus on proved facts, not ones that basically exist to back unfounded claims of how later families were closely connected to the Ducal family of Normandy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - funtcionally a member of the inner circle or "cabinet" of William the Conquerer. He's notable not because of who he's related to, but because he was influential at a critical time in history. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If he was a member of the "inner circle" of William the Conqueror - he'd be mentioned in the biographies of William - he's not in Douglas, he's not in Bates, he's not in Hagger. He's clearly not in the inner circle at all. Searle has barely any mention of William, son of Robert the archbishop and count - and those are entirely related to either Robert's sons as a group or to William's marriage. It's worth noting that Searle is not convinced that the daughters (she lists two) ascribed to William and Hawise wasn't actually from Hawise's first marriage. There is nothing in Searle that makes this William as a member of William the Conqueror's inner circle. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He is mentioned in Douglas, page 33, along with the other sons of the Archbishop
  - The Archbishop ". . . took to wife a woman named Herleve, and by her he had three sons, Richard, Ralph de Gace, and William." That is. He existed. We knew that. Not exactly "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as dictated by WP:BIO as defining notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- I also initially thought this was about the Domesday tenant in chief, but his article is at William, Count of Evreux, who is the person about whom Bearian is probably thinking. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGranted this is a difficult individual, and the delete arguments are all valid. He suffers from name overlap with the Count of Evreux, and lack of sources common with all individuals of this period. As noted, what is clear is that his father was critical to control of the duchy at the time. What also is clear is that the Archbishop acted through his sons, and that Norman politics at the time was dependent on relationship. William d'Evreux was among William the Conqueror's closest relatives. Furthermore, his status as a prominent member of the Norman aristocracy is supported by the story of his daughter' high status preventing her marriage to Roger of Sicily. Granted, that connection to the later d'Evreux who were part of the Rouen clergy (like the Archbishop) is not possible to definitely connect, but they do suggest that this family held a position in what has been termed the proto-Exchequer in Normandy. Furthermore the later d'Evreux held lands in the region of the family adjacent to William d'Evreux's siblings, particularly the Sire de Gace. Arcussenilis - Talk 12:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should have stopped with 'the delete arguments are all valid.' The delete arguments are that he fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, that he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. That is all that needs to be said. Instead you try to deduce notability based on violations of NOTINHERITED, SYNTH, and some stuff that is completely made up. If you have to deduce notability because you don't have sources to demonstrate notability, the person isn't notable. (I mean really - 'there is no evidence of any relationship whatsoever, but a bunch of people coming from the same town served a later king, so this man must be notable'? What kind of argument is that?). Oh, and before another person argues that he was related to William the C so he must have been in his inner circle, they really ought to take a look at Robert de Torigny and some of the other chroniclers, who name large networks of relatives of Duke William, the descendants of Richard I's bastards, the descendants of Gunnor's siblings and nieces. the descendants of Richard I's half-brother, Robert's half-brothers, William's own half-brothers, his mother's kin, plus a bunch that are just called his relatives without further information - dozens and dozens of people, enough to fill an inner circle and an outer circle and still have some relatives left over to be completely outside the circle. This is not a valid argument. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge? We can't exactly do both at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, there is nothing here worth merging, as all we know about him is that he was son of Robert and father of Judith, and that is already summarized on Robert's and Judith's pages. I have struck my original recommendation and now will say Delete along with the others voting against keeping it. I originally thought preserving a redirect would be useful, but now I think most people searching for this name want someone else anyhow. It would be useful, after deleting, to then create a disambiguation page under this namespace with two entries, one pointing to William, Count of Evreux, and a second listing this man and pointing to either Archbishop Robert's page, or that of his daughter Judith. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems good agreement for Keep, especially as Nom suggested they'd be satisfied with a weak keep (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meru Cabs[edit]

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

Notability is in the grey zone here. There are refs and a ton of hits, but if you discount routine announcements / PR in the business press, not much if anything remains. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An in-depth article by The Economic Times as shown here [24] with additional pieces by the Huffington Post India – Forbes India and Times of India, as shown here [25] to name just a few. Believe this meets our requirements for inclusion. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your first ref is the best I have seen so far, but I am really reluctant to consider it is as an WP:INDY source. It is basically a hagiography of the visionary foundation of the company, so it probably was a "pre-written" article sent from Meru Cabs' PR office to a willing journalist. As for your Google search, could you provide a specific source instead? (Google search results vary across users and all I see in the first page are passing mentions.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hello Tigraan. I believe if you click on any individual article my Google News search references provided above, that individual reference should come up, which shows Secondary – verifable and Reliable sources. If you have problems….just let me know. I’ll correct. Regards ShoesssS ^Talk 17:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: As I already said, Google search results depend on the user. In my case, your Google search link shows 230 results to me. The first of these is [26] which is an obvious press release in disguise, so not WP:INDY: all the article contents are "Meru Cabs says". I am not going to click the 229 other results to check and guess which one you think shows notability, if even they are in my results: if you have found a couple of good articles, link to them, not to a vague Google search. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hello Tigraan. You are absolutely right. The search terms we put into Google News will affect the outcome results. However, when nominating an article for deletion (AFD} we are required to do Before or many of us call “Due Diligence”. If I did a search and come up with 229 results I would think that the subject may meet Notability Standards and would take the time to look through the results to see if they meet our requirements rather than take your stance “…I am not going to click the 229 other results to check and guess which one you think shows notability, if even they are in my results.” In the meantime, I have updated several references in the article, which I believe come from Secondary – Independent – Reliable sources. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE does not require one to carefully inspect every Google hit for every plausible search string about a topic.

Thanks for the edits though, this gives us stuff to discuss. From the current references in the article:

[27] - 404 error. Assuming the correct link is [28], it does not mention Meru Cabs.
[29] Company source
[30] - viable source: mostly WP:ROUTINE, but that's independent coverage, so it counts
[31] - passing mention
[32] - newspaper topic page, not a source
[33] - the "about" page of the website and the "advertise" page scream "not independent".
Ref 7 is the same as ref 4. (Have a look at Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once for the future)
[34] - I would say not indy: the Meru content of the article is basically a long quote from the founder. One could argue that the juxtaposition of the quote with other cab industry news constitutes original coverage though.
[35] - Company source
[36] - not indy (obviously a press release from Meru Cabs)
[37] - OK source, I think. Probably a recycled press release, but still, original reporting from a reputable source.
[38] - that on the other hand is transparently a press release. No indication of author except for TNN, so the PR went through the news agency into that website.
[39] - passing mention, however it points to [40] which is a much better source. I am not sure how reliable the website is though.
[41] - meh. Again, another recycled press release; does it really count that the editor put a picture on the story?

All in all, based on the few good sources, I would change my nomination to a weak keep. I am not going to withdraw though, as I believe this can do with some more community input. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – First “Thank You”, I, personally believe, that is a Great Call. Second, the “Policy” – “Procedures” and personal opinions on interpretation of the convoluted process, often effects our outlook here at Wikipedia. If you ever need help, or an opinion, that may differ from yours….just drop me a note. Right or wrong, with regards to my advice, will give you my honest thought process. Welcome, all contributions are appreciated. Regards. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is notable and good page hit history too - Varmapak ^(talk) 18:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and nom has already conceded weak keep.--DBig Xray 20:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Menon (author)[edit]

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

Vanity article (probably auto-biography) that doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Brown Man in Russia: Lessons Learned on the Trans-Siberian. ansh 666 07:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill author. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing and the current sources do not establish notability. The creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR & WP:GNG. Fit India 09:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG, and no references found that show otherwise. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (WP:SKCRIT #1) - see comment below. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of India national football team hat-tricks[edit]

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

WP:SALAT, list too specific: I strongly doubt the topic of "hat-tricks by the Indian national football team" is notable enough in itself that a list is warranted. All entries are referenced by that does not make an OK list topic. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state why such a list on Indian Football is necessary, especially, now. From 1950 to early 1970s, India was considered a powerhouse of Asian Football. This is evident from match results provided by FIFA website that those days India was at par with nations like South Korea, Japan, UAE or even Australia. But after that football lost it's popularity in India and Cricket emerged as the most popular sport. Gradually, football in India lost the status and importance which it had enjoyed before. This reflected in the performance also as India turned into one of the weakest football nations in the world fan-following dwindled. But things started to change for better with the turn of the century, most precisely in the last 10 years Indian Football has turned around. Qualifying in the AFC Asian Cup twice in last 10 years is testimony that. Also, India's FIFA rank has jumped from 173 to 97 in last 2 years. Last year India successfully hosted the U-17 World Cup. These events have generated a renewed interest in Indian Football among the masses, especially, the young generation. That is the reason that now there is a concerted effort being made by FIFA, AIFF and the Sports Ministry of India to popularize football in this part of the world.

Now, in India most of the younger generation seeks information from digital media; however, very little is available on India's glorious past in digital format as most of the writings were in print media. Whatever little is available in digital format is so much scattered across various websites that someone who wants to enhance his/her knowledge about Indian football would feel disappointed. So bringing such information under one umbrella so that it is easily available to the interested audience is one objective which wikipedia has successfully done over the last decade. There are various articles on Indian football and stalwarts of Indian football, both past and present, are available in Wikipedia. Now, in the game of football, number of goals and hat-tricks has always been considered an important yardstick, besides many others, to judge a team's success, strength and prowess. Hence, there is always an interest among football's followers to know about their team's heroes from statistics like the highest goal scorers or hat-trick scorers and such information creates a fan-following for that footballer which in turn popularizes the game because stars can bring in the crowds. For instance, today's generation wouldn't know that how strong India once was that they could beat Australia in 1956 Olympics and also one Indian player scored a hat-trick against them in that match. They would not know that a player like Sunil Chhetri has scored so many hat-tricks against quality opposition besides scoring 64 international goals. Such articles will create an awareness and interest among the people which would help popularizing the game in this part of the world. That is why lists of hat-tricks not only merges the accomplishments of both past and present to feed the growing interest in Indian Football but also provides single point of information for any researcher or an sports journalist because while compiling the list thorough research has been done to find reliable sources to buttress the data. Besides, such a list helps educating to the football enthusiasts of the rest of the world about India's glorious past and growing influence. These sources are articles from very reputed newspapers of India and Singapore which have a strong subscriber-base and have been in circulation for more that 70 years.

There can be a counter-argument that since many other articles on Indian Football in wikipedia might contain such information what is the point of having a dedicated list. But, let me tell you, such information is available only in parts and that too in isolation. For instance, even one month back I didn't know the names like Marto Gracias or Magan Singh Rajvi. But while editing other articles in Wikipedia, I was doing some research and stumbled upon these names who have served Indian Football with distinction including scoring hat-tricks in important international tournaments. Sadly, such heroes have lost their place in public memory. Secondly, any avid follower looking for hat-trick scorers of Indian Football would be more interested finding the names and matches about hat-tricks if they are listed at one place because such a reader will not have enough time to glean through every article on Indian Football.

Also such articles can serve to rectify mistakes in other wikipedia articles. For instance, while creating the article I found a similar list of Philippines national football team List of Philippines national football team hat-tricks and they have failed to include Subhash Bhowmick in their section Hat-tricks conceded by the Philippines. I could immediately point the page creator to my list and the reference from The Straits Times to buttress my claim. He had no doubt in my claim because the newspaper The Straits Times holds a good reputation in his country too.

Hence I feel such a list should not be deleted because it can go a long way to inspire and popularize the game in India. Regards DipanjanDatta1974 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)DipanjanDatta1974[reply]

@DipanjanDatta1974: Please make a policy-based argument. What you just said (in a lot of words) is an argument for why football should be promoted in India, not why we should keep a list about hat-tricks in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no interest in promoting football or India. See WP:ILIKEIT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will summarize the points why I feel the article should not be deleted:

1) In the game of football, hat-tricks are considered as an important statistics and a measure of accomplishment as they are rare and all football enthusiasts are interested in knowing about it.

2) India is an emerging football nation and after it's qualification in the upcoming 2019 AFC Asian Cup, more and more people want to know the facts, statistics and history of Indian Football. This list provides a glimpse of the past as well as the present strength.

3) No website including wikipedia provides such a well-compiled list about Indian hat-trick scorers backed by references from the most reliable sources available.

4) Within 3 days of creating the list, page views of more than 200 is a testimony to that fact there are lot of viewers who are interested in such a list.

5) Such a list can serve as a reference point for researchers and new articles. A similar list on Philippines national football team hat-tricks List of Philippines national football team hat-tricks was able rectify an obvious omission in their list only after viewing the List of India national football team hat-tricks.

6) The reference materials used to compile the list are articles from very reputed newspapers of India and Singapore which have a strong subscriber-base and have been in circulation for more that 70 years. Other references include articles from FIFA and AIFF.

Regards DipanjanDatta1974 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)DipanjanDatta1974[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - not because I am convinced by the points above (I am not) but because in light of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Japan_national_football_team_hat-tricks_(2nd_nomination) WikiProject Football seems to think hat-tricks lists are OK, and I will defer to their judgement. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Brown Man in Russia: Lessons Learned on the Trans-Siberian[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Google search turned up nothing but online copies of the book. Article was probably written by the author of the book, whose own biographical article is also up for deletion. ansh 666 07:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing and the current sources do not establish notability. The creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Fit India 13:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no reviews, no library holdings. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meeting WP:GNG for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbroughton (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Tein-Padom[edit]

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

Fail WP:NFOOTY but author contest PROD Hhkohh (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Assuming Richard3210's comment is an equivalence of keep... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LADAMA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Sources located do not satisfy the requirements of reliability, independence and significance. The editor whose username is Z0 14:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had this page on my watchlist for the last month, trying to decide whether it passes notability, and I think it might do - obviously the best sources in the article are the ones from public broadcasters (NPR, WNYC, WBUR), but I assume these count as reliable sources. There's also this article from Colombia's El Espectador newspaper [42], which is definitely an RS as one of the country's leading newspapers. Clearly most of the section on band members needs to go as it's sourced to the band's website or other non-RS, but I think a basic stub might pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPR coverage: album review, of the song "Porro Maracatu", review of new single "Confesión"; interview (pp. 28–31) in Tom Tom Magazine; WBUR-FM piece; video review in Folk Radio UK;coverage in El Diario La Prensa, and plenty of smaller items in reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The in-depth coverage indicated by Hobbes Goodyear shows this band easily passing WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. --Oakshade (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Saeed (industrialist)[edit]

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

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A politician needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. It is possible for a politician to demonstrate notability by passing only WP:GNG. There may be references for this person in other languages spoken in Pakistan, and if so those references should be added to this article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them. You need to establish the WP:N in order to rescue this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Saqib and Eastmain for your contribution to suggest to improve the page or consider deletion. I've added a further reference to his being elected twice as town councilor (nazim), a reference to his membership in SESSI (as covered by the press), and his presidency of KATI (as covered in the press). This is as per WP:Politician guidelines which refer that if a person has received significant press coverage, he can be considered for an article. Again, thank you for your guidance!HQEditor (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide some coverage here which can help establish the notablity of the person. --Saqib (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this conversation before. WP:GNG does not guarantee inclusion. It clearly states that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. So, WP:GNG on its own is not enough; we need more than that because, as the guideline goes on to explain, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And if there is no obligation for the subject to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN then why would Wikipedia have such a guideline? -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources here are not about Zahid Saeed for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — nearly all of them are either primary sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, and the only two that actually have him as their core subject are mere blurbs. This is not substantive coverage for the purposes of making a person notable — GNG is not just "sources exist in which his name happens to appear", but requires sources to be substantively about him in much more depth than anything here shows. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing significant in coverage to pass WP:GNG. On the other side, he also fails WP:NPOL test. Störm (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nomination on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN on account of lack of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any other significant coverage that's not there now. The mentions are passing, and some are highly press release driven. The phrase "...rich experience in the field of pharma industry..." is repeated. His professional and political careers don't quite meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW close; there's no reason to continue having this discussion so soon after this person's murder as it's clear there will not be a consensus for deletion at this time. A possible merge/redirect to 13 July 2018 Pakistan bombings could be discussed on the talk page, though there's no point discussing that right now either. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siraj Raisani[edit]

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

While the person has received press coverage after his death but politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A politician does not have to pass WP:POLITICIAN if he or she passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The individual the article is based on passes notability guidelines given under WP:GNG which supersede specialized biography policies like WP:POLITICIAN, therefore I see nothing wrong with a direct move to WP:BIO. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 07:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Good referencing. This nom is weird.BabbaQ (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has become an extremely notable person following his death. His death was the result of one of the deadliest terror attacks in Pakistani history, which is obviously notable. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Masterpha (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG through fails WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. NPOL merely creates a presumption of notability, it does not preclude it. I'll note that election candidates assassinated during their election campaign are almost always notable - perhaps we should have a WP:NPOL_ASSASSINATED criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandella[edit]

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

Hoax? Can't find any non-mirror content online. Of the listed print sources, the first's author is notable, but the book title suggests that it focuses on Hindu monsters, not Ethiopian ones. The second source contains no links whatsoever, and even if the subject is in there, I doubt that it would grant it notability. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute. . ."Vandella". . ."Vandel". . ."Vandal" — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very likely a hoax as per nom, created 12 years ago, has even made its way into books and other sites, could not find any sources covering the topic that predates the creation of the article. Most of the Google results for "Vandella" are about other non-notable obscure topics. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, also this should be archived to WP:HOAXLIST if deleted as one of the longest standing hoaxes in the history of Wikipedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; clearly not verifiable based on English sources. I tried to transliterate to Amharic (as "Vanidela" ቫኒደላ) and got no results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appropriately, there's nowhere to run to, ~~baby~~ article, nowhere to hide, and we'll be Dancing in the Street when you're gone. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the word exists, but it's unclear how notable this fictional thing is. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119071839

[1] ttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-09-05/features/8901100810_1_vegetarian-ocala-national-forest-gentle-people/2

[2] ttp://articles.latimes.com/1991-04-23/news/vw-785_1_animal-flesh

[3] ttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11945058

[4] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=0AiAz62C_jcC See page 238.

[5] ttps://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=The+Pawnee+capture+of+the+Cheyenne

[6] ttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119071839

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]