Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 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 delete. Sandstein 07:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikidia

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

Already deleted once; the sources are no better than last year. Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vikidia has compiled a list of their press coverage (French). It doesn't look like the entries on the list allow the site to pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. The Okapi article might be okay, but it's just one source, and I can't verify it without access to the magazine. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 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 keep. Can be revisited in a few months if the NBA career doesn't happen. Michig (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Stewart

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

Non-notable college pumpkinbouncer Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the school's all-time leading three-point scorer. Just finished Summer League and will be playing professionally somewhere next season, possibly in the NBA. The sources are there if you look for it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources on the article demonstrate WP:GNG. Also, he has signed with the Indiana Pacers of the NBA, the deal just hasn’t been announced yet. I realize it wouldn’t play a game until the season starts in October, but seems dumb to delete in July. Rikster2 (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft The arguments to keep here largely rely on WP:CRYSTAL. It's fairly likely that he'll sign with some professional team, but I don't see enough coverage of his college career to justify an article if he never has any professional career. In a few months it will be clear. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep To me it seems like the article barely meets WP:GNG. The sources, with the exception of the 4th one, seem to be reliable and independent enough to help contribute at least a little bit to the general notability guideline, and the topic is significantly covered in these sources. If keeping the article is not possible, I definitely support draftify over delete.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:41, 27 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 07:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. O'Rahilly

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

Insufficient sourcing, unsubstantiated claims, severely out-of-date due to minimal interest with little or no updates for a substantial number of years. Bludpuppy (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bludpuppy, just out of curiosity, why did you make so many edits to this article, then nominate it for deletion after the notability tag was added? - PabloMartinez (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PabloMartinez Thank you for contacting me and for your edits. I am new to Wikipedia and am overwhelmed by it's detailed usage. If I could I would delete all of my edits and contributions as I see they made quite a mess, and rescind the nomination. Wikipedia said "Be bold" and congratulated me on my first edit and after 10 said "keep going"(wasn't aware they would all be saved as revisions). I had read that notability was a reason for deletion or adding to another article and was similar to nomination. Again playing with buttons I have no knowledge of. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. O'Rahilly and felt that I had ruined his article and maybe this would let users give him a fresh start. I have no desire to ever edit this or anyone else's page again. I thought that by getting a consensus to delete that a new article could be clean start, again a naive thought of how Wikipedia works. I apologize to the Wikipedia community and to anyone that was offended by my recklessness. Wikipedia will be a "read only" for me from now on. Thanks again. Bludpuppy —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Bludpuppy. No need to be overwhelmed, but if the person the article about is notable, I would question whether it should be deleted, or just cleaned up. Perhaps others can weigh in. - PabloMartinez (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bludpuppy NOT necessarily wanting this article deleted if it could be cleaned up like Pablomartinez is suggesting including a deletion of all of the recent edit revisions (who can do that?). Might be nice to add a photo. I worked with Pat years ago and he was always the consummate professional with a mind for business. I have a considerable amount of Pat's personal and business info that I could share, keeping the subject matter to what I know he would approve of. Maybe someone with good writing skills could interpret into a properly structured piece. I have a serious neurological disability and have a tough time typing without constantly making errors/revisions but I could provide details. So either way I'm sure we could come up with a better quality article and at the same time improve Wikipedia. Thanks. Bludpuppy comment added by top|talk]]) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non voter reply)::to Bludpuppy, You are not supposed to edit articles about people you worked with since you are too close to the subject (unless you remain neutral and seeing by your words it appears not). Plus the article on Patrick must be neutral, even if that makes him unhappy. Please read conflict of interest guidelines on this site. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JC7V7DC5768 Thanks for the info. I can remain neutral and stick to the facts. I will take any edits suggested to heart and adhere to the guidelines. Thanks again. (Bludpuppy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bludpuppy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[JC7V7DC5768] After extensive reading on the subject I see your point and Wikipedias logic behind it. It's best I don't contribute anything. (Bludpuppy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bludpuppy (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local coverage and non-notable awards, but nothing that adds up to actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-UPE + No notability.Huh!∯WBG^converse 12:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Not at Aspen anymore. Heard he retired.Bludpuppy (talk) 22:16, 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. Sandstein 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle Creek Logistics Services

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

Having reviewed the sources, I am not at all sure this is a notable enough organization. What coverage there is a pretty routine mentions in trade publications. (some of the links don’t seem to work at all) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources, just routine/passing mentions. — Newslinger talk 10:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 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. Sandstein 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Mack

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides for the failing of GNG. If survives it needs a lot of work because there are a lot of claims that are not supported by WP:RS, such as wrestling in TNA, WWE and ROH - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found one local article [1] but nothing that constitutes significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 21:29, 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 merge to Asian Games 2018: Energy of Asia. Sandstein 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janger Persahabatan

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

Not notable per WP:SONG or this article could be merged with the album Asian Games 2018: Energy of Asia instead. Also the theme song for the 2018 Asian Games is "Meraih Bintang", not this song. Hddty. (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Asian Games 2018: Energy of Asia per Hddty. The single hasn't made a notable chart impact or attracted critical attention on its own. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 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. Sandstein 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Rose (wrestler)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a ton of sources in this article and out of that mention him, however I cannot seem to find anything out there that supports notability, its all routine. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While at first glance the sourcing looks impressive, but it is primarily routine and primary sources. No significant coverage in independent sources. Nikki♥311 21:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The overwhelming majority of the sources are trivial coverage that confirm he appeared on a particular small wrestling show. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A582:5206:94BC:8473 (talk) 11:26, 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. Sandstein 07:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azrieal

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As part of researching his notability, I came across him being a member of Special K (professional wrestling). I was hoping to find something to support that he was a notable member there and redirecting this page to there, however I couldn't even support Special K, so I have nominated that for deletion as well. However should that be proven notable, and him being an important member, that could be a likely redirect target. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 03:23, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Papics

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything I am finding appears to be routine coverage, does not meet GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Not notable as wrestler or in MMA. Nikki♥311 03:25, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Jaiswal

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim of notability and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The only real notability claim here is that he held an administrative role with the state election agency during one election -- but this is not a role that guarantees a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and the amount of sourcing shown here is not enough to deem him as passing WP:GNG for it. As always, everybody who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article -- it takes more than just "Topic is a person who had a job", and more substantive sourcing to support it than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a member of an election commission is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple reliable and independent sources that make this one pass GNG. See The Hindu and TOI. Besides, the person is very important and did notable service in India. Dial911 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of those two is a mere employment announcement blurb, not substantive coverage for the purposes of helping to get him over GNG, and while the other one is more detailed it takes more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is almost impossible for a person of that rank in Indian police go unnoticed. Here are some more references The Hindu, Deecan Chronicle, TOI. Besides, brief Mention of this officer can be found in several sources like this and this. That should be enough to keep it here, I believe. Dial911 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief mentions" are not notability assisters. We're after verification of notability, not just verification of existence, so coverage has to be substantive, not just a "brief mention" of his existence, before it counts as a data point toward getting a person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just addressed my last line in your comment. Look above, The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle coverage is fairly substantial. Dial911 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The Hindu is a less than 100-word blurb about him, which is not substantive coverage for the purposes of counting toward GNG, and both of the others are just brief mentions of his existence in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you focus on quantity and not quality? There is no maximum-minimum word count criteria for passing GNG. 100 words published in The Hindu tell the significance of the person. Besides, there is another in-depth source already given. Dial911 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem with a 100-word blurb is the quality test. GNG requires substantial coverage, which blurbs are not. The number of sources that are theoretically available is not as important than the depth of them — 100 blurbs would still count for less toward GNG than two or three genuinely substantive articles would. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:GNG. No claim to notability under any other specific criteria. Ifnord (talk) 20:31, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assembled Brands

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I would be fine with a redirect to Adam_Pritzker#Career which already sufficiently covers the subject. The company is only notable in relation with Pritzker, who is using his name to promote the company. It's not independently notable and the page is being used for promotion. Wikipedia does not need two pages on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed compromise (redirecting this to article Pritzker's career section) would be fine. K.e.coffman's reasoning is quite incisive. -The Gnome (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nominator clicked on the citations if they say significant RS coverage not found. Two full-length features stories in the New York Times. This and this.; a long feature in The New York Observer [2]; a feature in Fortune Magazine; [3]; a long feature in leading business newspaper Business Insider [4]; a long feature in the leading fashion industry publication Women's Wear Daily [5]; another feature in Digiday; long story in a leading fashion publisher Fashionista.BC1278 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I don't believe that these sources meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. For example, the NYT piece details that company's hopes and aspirations, with the title suggesting that the company has not achieved anything significant just yet: "Can America Build Its Own LVMH?" Business Insider is likewise advertorial in nature: "Go inside the gorgeous New York apartment where everything is for sale". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LVMH is the world's largest luxury goods conglomerate, with about $55 billion a year in revenue. The first (of two) NYT feature stories, here, explores whether Assembled Brands, given its track record of establishing brands, its pedigree, funding and model, might eventually rival it. It's a fiction to say the article suggests the company has not achieved anything significant yet.BC1278 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Get off the stage. You can't consider an article that uses language like The experiment is being conducted by Adam Pritzker, a positive-thinking spritelike 31-year-old scion of the billionaire Hyatt hotel family, and Vanessa Traina, the famously chic 31-year-old daughter of the romance novelist Danielle Steel and stylist/consultant/BFF of designers like Joseph Altuzarra and Alexander Wang anywhere close to being "intellectually independent". Secondly, nowhere in the article does is ever say or suggest that they could *rival* LVMH. The article suggests he "dreams" of something completely differently. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP the article talks about the company's goals and strategy as do the sources. The articles all seem to concentrate on the fact that the founder comes from a well known family and not on the business itself. These articles are useful for notability for the fpunder but not the company. That said the founder's page looks like it needs some cleaning up. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on the individual. This is not hopeless, and I looked at it previously and decided not to nominate for deletion, because it's more substantial than many similar articles. I think a case could be made that coverage of a prospective firm in such detail in multiple usually authoritative publications might reflect their editorial judgment that even at this point the firm is notable. I normally try to look behind the name of the journal into the actual nature of the coverage. I have read the articles, and they are not incidental mentions, or mere gossip, or pure promotionalism, but especially with the NYT, a serious discussion of the company. I would still prefer merge to keep, because I am very skeptical of the general concept of covering separately a person and his various enterprises especially when the person or firm is paying for the articles to be written here. I have in fact warned the ed. on his talk p. about this tactic, & I hope he keeps in in mind for his future work. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this article is a poor candidate to merge because it fails the core premise of WP:ATD-M: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." This extremely well-funded, high-profile company, with a new way of doing business for the fashion industry, is all but certain to continue to receive RS coverage for many years to come. Coverage starts in 2013 and a major new feature story appeared just last month is the fashion industry's leading news publication, WWD. Also, much of what's encyclopedic about Assembled Brands would be coatracking on a BLP, so this article cannot just be substantially merged with Adam Pritzker. Almost all of it would need to be deleted in a BLP. A merge here is essentially the same as Delete. BC1278 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. The "new and improved WP:NCORP" is not entirely improved; it tends to assumptively eliminate all business media coverage as routine from the start, regardless of the actual content in said media, and some reporters/articles/sources are more independent than others. Then, deletionists may sometimes just say "delete per WP:SPIP, WP:NCORP ...(et al.) anyway, and sometimes don't even bother actually reading the sources, only base notability upon sources within an article (see WP:NEXIST), or even worse, don't bother to engage in WP:BEFORE searches (not saying that anyone within this discussion has done so). Not a bright precedent for the encyclopedia; it dumbs it down. Also, no prejudice against merging to Adam Pritzker as per DGG's stance above, which is correspondent with WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the opposite is that till now, most editors assumed that if a business got a mention in a newspaper then Bingo! Sadly, it isn't the fault of NCORP that most business media coverage is crap and simply parrots the announcements or quotations or interviews. They just become extensions of a companies marketing/PR departments. All it takes is for the article to have some intellectually independent analysis or opinion but it seems most journalists/publications don't. Also, companies aren't entitled to an article unless they're notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So .. your argument boils down to you !voted Keep (ignore the rules) because you don't like/agree with NCORP? That appears to me to be a concession that the topic fails NCORP but you want to Keep the article anyway? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above as it passes WP:NCORP with rs independent coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi Atlantic306, can you point out the independent coverage please? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I trust DGG's judgement above, 2 NYT Times articles, Fortune and Observer sources- yes there is some interview but there is also independent comment and analysis as well. Corpdepth allows articles that contain analysis and interviews. Corpdepth should not be used to rubbish every reliable source, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Hi Atlantic306, but ... DGG !voted to Merge, not to Keep? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uhhm, what HM said. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion and been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions BC1278 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Fails WP:NCORP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Big fat TOOSOON. We don't give out gold stars for the first editor to scoop Wikipedia with a new article, we're not in a rush, and we're not in a race. The answer to "this company surely will be successful enough to have an article" is "then it isn't notable enough YET to have one." Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking adequate evidence of independent notability, which, graciously, shapes a generous alternative one should not refuse, i.e. Merge it. Another holding company, the type that rarely gets noticed. (I said, there are exceptions!) But perhaps the sources are there.

Are they? The New York Times piece is a portrait of the founder. Great threads but no cigar. From the Fortune article, we learn that "after graduating from Columbia University in 2008, Adam got the business bug" and other info in that vein, which is very absorbing but the company gets second billing again, in a text tellingly titled "The Prince of Sales." There's a Women's Wear Daily report that also focuses on the Prince of Sales. Then, we learn that "Adam Pritzker Might Have the Solution to Fashion’s Retail Problem" by the Observer, in a text that closes the deal on the fact that most, if not all, of those articles, are fawning infomercials really, with nary a critical or negative word in them! Apparently, everything is perfect in there. Well, I cannot suggest to keep such a text. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The fact that we're talking about an "extremely well funded" corporation, as BC1278 informs us, causes me to stumble a bit in these financially dire times we live in, but it's too darn late to change my suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAgree with User:Northamerica1000, and WP:NEXIST applies in this case. Also agree merging to Adam Pritzker as per User:DGG's suggestion as the last option.Kaytsfan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection as far as I'm concerned to Merge what can be salvaged into the Adam Pritzker article, although such outcomes tend to lower the fee. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by, "...although such outcomes tend to lower the fee."Kaytsfan (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "the fee"? I meant to say "the fee." -The Gnome (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Observer article is one example that includes substantial content 'about' Assembled Brands, even if most of the other high-pedigree references are snippets in articles primarily about the founder. If no article for the founder existed, I still think we get a (not overly strong) keep for the company. Yet the notability of founder and company, as proven by the available references at least, is substantially intertwined, and Merge with Adam Pritzker is not unreasonable. BoyRD (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "intertwined" about notability in Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Either the subject's notable on its own, or it's not. Notability is not infectious, passed around, or inherited. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I mis-stated my final point, which is that the RS coverage is closely related and that a merge would be a reasonable outcome, even though I believe the subject meets GNG. BoyRD (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think The Gnome puts his finger on the problems nicely. The references fail to meet the criteria for notability as per NCORP (none appear to be "intellectually independent") and it is clear that some heavy promotion and wooing of the press has gone into pumping the profile of this company. The article creator, BC1278, has disclosed they were paid in the past to create this article and are no longer getting paid. I also have a very large concern that the article creator also runs a marketing and promotional company for brands with expertise in using technology and social media to achieve this aim. I would like the article creator to provide a list of articles that they have been paid to create as well as adhere to WP:COI as follows: Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation". HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 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. Sandstein 07:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrossBrowserTesting

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

Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources for the product itself (which should not be confused with the generic term "cross-browser testing"). Product is already mentioned on its company's article, SmartBear Software. Newslinger (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept itself is notable. It should be moved to cross-browser testing and additional sources added. https://www.stickyminds.com/article/how-test-your-website-multiple-browsers-four-solutions-compared is one. It's also listed as a topic in several testing books. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have an article cross-browser. This spam for a new product provides no useful content for that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on cross-browser. Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Comment
The much bigger problem is that Wikipedia does not have articles supporting the realm of cross-browser topics.
: Development and Testing are two immediate and easily spotted missed topics, both belonging to that realm.
The existing Cross-browser article for that realm, which logically sit at the top of the perceived conceptual hierarchy, is crap - and worse: The Cross-browser article's history show no sign of it moving towards overall improvement.
In short: This AfD is a bike-shed discussion, and I'm proposing to keep this bike-shed - it's not harmful, so why demolish it(?).
(BTW: For those being both competent & interested, I just did a Google Search and found this, which unfortunately is a bit dated, but it is at least more elaborate than that).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion as a service The function of Wikipedia is not to advertise for non-notable products. Nothing here needs to be merged into the article we already have (in fact, such a merge would make that article worse). XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge summary into cross-browser. --Baerentp (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't advertise this product on Cross-browser. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. First source is a passing mention, next two are from the product website, another two are about the acqusition of the company and not the prouduct. The second last citation is a sponsored article, and the final one is a press release of dubious independance. Creator and only major editor has a WP:COI as an employee. Without any major mentions in the first (and only) few pages of Google results, this should fall under WP:SPAM — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 13:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept of cross-browser testing: notable. This service product of the same name: not notable. Does not appear to offer any beneficial content to justify a Merge, even if the article for cross-browser testing (the concept) could use some attention. References are lists, PR and sponsored content. Fails WP:GNG. BoyRD (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alpha3031, above all the article fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 20:33, 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 redirect to Wellingborough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmingwell

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

No sources; so can't prove notability. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 22:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple Google search brings up multiple articles about activities in this location. For example: this and this. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wellingborough as a categorized {{R to related topic}}, (the script Sagittarius+ can be useful), the title is a valid search term. Sources exist, but I don't see there is material for a stand-alone article here. It is one of five wells of Wellingborough, none of the four other have stand-alone articles. Per WP:GEOLAND populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. Sam Sailor 00:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this should be kept so that more people can be aware of the neighborhoods in Wellingborough, however, this does stand alone meaning that an article should really be made for the other 4 wells of Wellingborough. I have come to my personal decision that this page should be kept up, however, it will need a lot more work put into it i.e history, population etc. --Buntz06 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Buntz06 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
I have restored the above "keep" vote. Once other editors have mede comments in a discussion, we are not allowed to remove our previous comment. Editor can strike the comment per WP:REDACTED should they so wish. Sam Sailor 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe we should give the article time to develop. If it just stays like this for a few months after the AfD is closed, maybe a merge with Wellingborough would be a better idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the contents to the Wellingborough-article. My intention was to allow the creator some time to expand the article, so that more sources could confirm the notability. However, if the creator prefers the article to be deleted, then that is all right with me too. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what article creator prefers has no bearing here. And the title is a perfectly valid search term and therefor good for redirecting. Sam Sailor 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : that might be true. However, my point was that I wanted to keep the article, so that the creator might have the chance and time to expand it. Now, since the creator has no interest in doing so, we'd better delete it. I have no objection to a redirect, though. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, WP:GEOLAND: "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, ... etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place" (my bolding).
The two sources presented here are not verifiable evidence of notability on a level that warrents a standalone page.
The argument that this does stand alone meaning that an article should really be made for the other 4 wells of Wellingborough sounds dubious; five small stubs doesn't make each other look less stub-ish. Sam Sailor 10:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. Unfortunately we can't keep this unsourced article under WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND as it stands - my WP:BEFORE search brought up surprisingly little (youths getting shot, car thefts, and primary sources from the Wellingborough council.) WP:GEOLAND says: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. - including this information in the Wellingborough article would be the proper thing to do for this unsourced stub (possibly with the other four wells), unless other sources/other independent notability can be shown. SportingFlyer talk 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would it be possible for me to delete this because I made it and I think it should be deleted? --Buntz06 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Buntz06, if there was no disagreement about deletion yet, and the creator of the article agreed as you have now, then pretty much anyone could close the AFD. But here there have been "Keep" votes so that can't be done. Your opinion is a little bit more important than others, I think, because it means the rest of us can't hope for more development to come from the creator as sometimes happens, but this will have to be kept open further. AFDs are usually closed after about 7 days if there has been adequate discussion. --Doncram (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Dawg

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:VICTIM. Both before and after his death, there was trivial coverage of his musical career. This biography does not meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria, including #4 ("has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour"), because the concert tour Smoke Dawg participated in was not his, it was Drake's (and Smoke Dawg isn't even mentioned on the Drake Wikipedia article). This was indeed a tragedy, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this biography does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rapper had notable recordings, many collaborations as well as a great following. This is also indicated in 45,000 visits to this page first day and 25,000 the second day. Repurcussions of the murder are also spreading as we speak with active search for the perpetrator(s). werldwayd (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He collaborated with two prominent hip hop artists (French Montana and Skepta), in addition to his association with Drake, and his music has been covered by MTV News, Noisey, Complex, The Fader, etc. Blackjays1 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackjays1: I have not been able to locate any sources which support a "collaboration" of any significance with French Montana, Skepta, or with Drake (except for playing one song on Drake's concert tour) . Also, how would this contribute to notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (music)? Could you please list your sources to support these collaborations? Also, you wrote that this person "has been covered by MTV News, Noisey, Complex, The Fader, etc." Again, could you please list each of these sources (excluding obituaries), as they would support notability. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources that confirm his two collaborations [6] [7] and here are the other four sources [8] [9] [10] [11]. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these links. I have carefully examined each and they do not contribute to notability, or to collaborations with more notable artists that were of any significance. Again, this article was nominated for deletion because it fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:VICTIM.

The first source from Complex, is a two sentence-long announcement that Smoke Dawg would be receiving "a huge assist from French Montana" on the the official remix of "Trap House". The Smoke Dawg/French Montana remix never charted, and is by Wikipedia standards non-notable. Smoke Dawg is not mentioned once at French Montana discography.
The second source from Fact, is a three sentence-long announcement that Skepta would be "guesting on a track with Toronto MC Smoke Dawg to create the song 'Overseas'". The song never charted, and is by Wikipedia standards non-notable. Neither the song "Oversears" nor Smoke Dawg are mentioned at Skepta discography.
The third source from Complex, is a six sentence-long article with trivial biographical details about Smoke Dawg, and an announcement that Smoke Dawg recently released "Fountain Freestyle", a non-notable song.
The fourth source from MTV News, is an article about Toronto's rap scene. The article makes trivial mention of Smoke Dawg, stating only that he was a member of the non-notable group Halal Gang, and that he "is Jamaican".
The fifth source from The Fader, is another announcement about Skepta's non-notable song "Overseas". This article makes trivial mention of Smoke Dawg.
The sixth source from Noisey, is a seven minute-long video interview with Smoke Dawg. Please note that primary sources like this "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", per WP:BASIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep. Agree that it doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:VICTIM alone, but "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" for WP:BASIC, and I'd say the non-music-industry (local) press coverage of the shooting tips the scale to "multiple independent". DavidLeeLambert (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidLeeLambert: Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not report standard news items. Why does typical press coverage of an event--which otherwise would have had no connection with this person had he not been one of two victims--contribute to this person's notability? Magnolia677 (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Collaborating with more notable musicians is not in and of itself an WP:NMUSIC pass, and the sources being shown to support that are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of those other people rather than substantive coverage about him — so they don't establish that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. The only serious grounds for considering him notable here is the death coverage itself — but if he didn't properly establish any NMUSIC notability in life, then the burst of death coverage just makes him a WP:BIO1E. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per @Bearcat:. Nice4What (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Notable rapper, and his murder is getting a lot of publicity globally. Inexpiable (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did he achieve in life that passes WP:NMUSIC to make him a "notable rapper"? Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat is right, subject is only notable for his death. Another BIO1E case. Edwardx (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. No charted songs, and no critical attention on any of his releases. The artist doesn't WP:INHERIT any notability from his more successful collaborators. — Newslinger talk 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The guy just doesn't have "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, and that's the bottom line. Don't know why the GNG has to be left behind with this WP:OOHLOOKSOURCEZ!!! garbage. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:14, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Webb

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked PWInsider, SLAM! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Torch, Super Luchas, Pro Wrestling Sheet, The Wrestling Observer and SoloWrestling, 1wrestling.com, InsidePulse, WrestleView, 411Mania, WrestleZone, Cageside Seats, Bleacher Report, PWMania, Postwrestling.com, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Prowrestling.net. None of them gave anything of note.★Trekker (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing looks impressive at first glance but it consists exclusively of primary sources, the cagematch database and routine match results.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cant find anything that isn't routine. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. I'm actually surprised I wasn't able to find anything other than WP:ROUTINE or primary coverage. Nikki♥311 21:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable independent wrestler. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A582:5206:94BC:8473 (talk) 11:35, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Flynn

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

It's sad to hear about him passing, but doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately doesn't pass WP:GNG and even his death has gotten minimal coverage.LM2000 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair he seems to have died like today. So it's not so strange that most sources havn't picked it up. That being said, delete this, maybe if there does become more sources a new article can be made. Maybe.★Trekker (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like Trekker basically said, if no RS are even covering his death, its a pretty clear sign he isnt notable. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find one article [12], but nothing that constitutes significant coverage. If any other news sources were to pick up his death, I'd change my mind. Nikki♥311 21:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several sources now covering his death including a lengthy obit here: [13]. BurienBomber (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source referred to above by BurienBomber is hardly a "lengthy obit", more a collection of tweets and similar posts regarding his death. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A582:5206:94BC:8473 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there' s not enough media coverage for this, it must be simply gone. Fixer88 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately doesn't meet WP:GNG. NANExcella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niles Young

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Notability. However each citation is not reliable. Can improve Citations. NANExcella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show some of the sources here to prove your point?★Trekker (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't trust Petey Staniforth in any capacity ;). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see how the performer meets WP:GNG. No in-depth media. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find anything that would support notability - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT (which is what WP:ATH indicates should be used to measure professional wrestlers). No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 10:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Bolin

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. He was a manager on a small, regional promotion. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. The citations are very poor and almost all of them stem from his website. No reliable independent sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one single good source from PWInsider and nothing more.★Trekker (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read through the biography of his book on Amazon and it makes him sound like he would be incredibly notable. But searching online for sources that back this up have been few and far between, and almost exclusively routine or non-RS. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all sources routine or primary, including his self-published book. He sure does seem to think a lot of himself, though. Nikki♥311 21:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. NANExcella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 23:20, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhan Rajput

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

Was deleted as a result of an AfD discussion back in 2017, but a G4 speedy was declined with the rationale, "There are new sources and new claims since the last AfD." However, same issues still apply. Not sure how large the roles in the upcoming films are, but as of right now fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Nothing contributes to notability since the last AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruhaan Rajput (Ruhan)).PRehse (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear Onel5969, i already explained my reason why article should not be deleted. And User:Spinningspark declined the speedy deletion. But you again marked it for deletion. However i can see the notability of the subject that could be defined by his new work that is published on good news websites like Business Standard, ANI, The Hans India and IMDB. Few articles was not published earlier since last AfD. You should consider the new work and new news article published about Ruhan Rajput's work. And i request to all Wikipedia editors at-least look in to the Ruhan's upcoming movies and music albums then how Ruhan is not notable since its last AFD? You can clearly see his new notable work that is also mentioned on few trusted news papers. You may also look in to the new citations which I am adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFE24 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I Just want to make it clear that my decline of the speedy deletion request does not mean that I support keeping this article. It only means that the page does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. SpinningSpark 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails WP:NACTOR also an article about the same subject was created in April under Draft:Ruhaan Rajput using the AfC process by a different user but the submission was declined twice due to the notability issue. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) (uodated 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Now notability meets the criteria.GentlemanY (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO how on earth is this [[14]], which is just a big ad for a skin and hair clinic in which the only allusion to the subject is a picture with "director" and his name beneath it and absolutely no other mention or explanation of his connection to the company in the entire page a reference for anything? the Business Standard article has "This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed" at the bottom. Nice to know the place that publishes it disclaims all responsibility for it; that sounds like a reliable source!. Then there's an article about the petrochemical industry that glancingly mentions the owner of one company which just happens to be the subject. the only article that mentions him has no biographical information at all. Curdle (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 49.145.244.119 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on sourcing, not just "passes / fails GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just see few new citations that could be consider. NANExcella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR, or WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The new citations are no better. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 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 keep. Post rewrite there seems strong consensus to retain. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leiba Dubrovskii

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

I do not believe this is notable at this point.I do not believe this is notable at this point. (Not speedying since there might be some potential for expanding the article). I am not even sure this merits a redirect to Volodymyr Viatrovych. Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the current amount of source, I believe Redirect to Volodymyr Viatrovych is the best outcome. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the episode is not even mentioned in that article, and I do not have a good quick assessment whether it should be mentioned there. Probably needs to be investigated further.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which episode isn't mentioned?Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Volodymyr Viatrovych and searched for "Dubr", did not find anything. Should I have a more careful look?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now it was added to Volodymyr Viatrovych, and possible expansion of that part and redirecting Leiba Dubrovskii to Volodymyr Viatrovych is certainly a viable outcome of this discussion. The Dubrovskii article was considerably expanded since nomination. I still have doubts, however, that Dubrovskii deserves a standalone article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about learning the subject instead to shout about your lack of knowledge? Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask you to concentrate on the topic of the article and be a bit more explicit? I am willing to help you but I am not sure what you want me to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.

The problem is more general, it's a part of the discussion if Ukrainian nationalists were antisemitic.

I understand that the page is of poor quality and it needs rewrite. I have copied part of the UPA page to create Stella Krenzbach. Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Xx236. Could you please try to be more civil in your interactions with other Wikipedia contributors? This is not a mere request for politeness but a reminder of a significant Wikipedia policy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage of this fictional person to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the contested article is not a "fictional" nor a "fictitious" person. He did exist, per sources. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though JPL's comment was reasonable at the time given that at that time the lead said ... is a fictional Jewish-Ukrainian nationalist, invented by.... PamD 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentlemanY (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG - lacks coverage Snowycats (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewitten the page and changed its name. I'm sorry but your opinions aren't based on facts. The subject has been widely covered - both the myth of a Jewish UPA fighter and the recent academic research.Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject comfortably meets the required notability criteria. Subject is a person that possibly unwittingly has become historically important in the context of the WWII history of the Ukraine. -The Gnome (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors are invited to examine the revised version of the text. -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after The Gnome's improvements which seem to establish notability. PamD 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the improvements made to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily meets GNG. Catrìona (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fortunately meets WP:GNG. NANExcella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). "A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frat shag

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

Article has no discernible reliable sources in a BEFORE check - it seems the fashion equivalent of a meme. I assume it is GNG it has to meet, which it does not appear to. I'm not sure whether the nature of the article has it meeting any additional Deletion reasons. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:59, 19 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 23:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources. All the articles I found are mere mirror of this article --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Absolutely no reliable sources. Only 439 exact-match google results. Article is completely uncited original research. — Newslinger talk 08:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article also tagged with speedy CSD, criteria, WP:A11, made up by article creator. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:17, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Information Processing

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

This appears to have slumbered peacefully in its orphan reclusion for several years now, but it's actually a somewhat surprising usurpation. The article is not about cognitive information processing (whatever the particulars of that may be) at all, it is about a particular application developed in one work group. The references are a beautiful walled garden: the same three names in rotation. And from my searches, this group's output is the entirety of coverage that approach has gotten so far. Assuming that there is a general subject such as cognitive information processing (and there seems to be), we don't have an article on that at the moment; we have a work group's private progress report on their application method.

I suggest redirecting to Cognitive science or a more suitable candidate until someome writes an article about the actual topic. Eeven if consensus should be that the current content is actually notable, it should at least be renamed to Cognitive information processing approach to career development and services and Cognitive Information Processing should be redirected, so that readers don't get the impression that this is what is meant by the term. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that the material is notable. Career Choice and Development references the work of the Florida State group both in the bibliography and ~~again~~frequently in running text. The author, Duane Brown, is professor of education at the University of North Carolina and appears to be independent of the Florida State group. Likewise, Applying Career Development Theory to Counseling discusses the approach in detail. Peterson (one of the Florida State authors) is named as a central figure and the book author again appears to be independent (his affiliation is given as the University of Delaware). On that basis, I say keep. I think Elmidae's suggested rename is awful, and one can understand why the article author abbreviated it, but for the sake of clarity, it needs to be done – I don't have a better suggestion. SpinningSpark 21:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Who cares: The "material" does appear to be vacuous in the extreme. Exposition: "CIP theory asserts that the major components involved in determining career decision-making and problem-solving effectiveness are the content and process of career decisions." Name a human enterprise which cannot be substituted for "career decision-making" for which this is not true (try "nuclear power station design" or "making a souffle"). Name a human activity for which the "recipe" metaphor is invalid: you need to know the ingredients and what to do with them. I do not think any person with a working brain would be misled by this article into thinking they were missing anything. And if deleted, something similar will pop up to fill its place. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Spinning - seems to be a valid concept -~~article needs to be improved~~ and have its title changed as per Elmidae's suggestion.... not deleted. Checking Google Scholar, there are 16,800 hits. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian - you may be mixing up the many hits on the topic that this article is not actually covering[15] with considerations about notability of what the article is actually covering[16] (i.e. one single application method). There certainly aren't 16k hits for the latter (rather, 7). Can you clarify - keep current content at current name, or move to more accurate name and write article about actual topic? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Elmidae I blundered into that, without reading the previous posts well enouhg. Yes, I can see they are speaking specifically about thos concept in the career context. I think, in terms of being more meaningful, I agree with Spinning Keep and rename to Elmidae's suggested title, so that it differentiates from the more general phrase. Article can then be improved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:14, 6 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) 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 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 redirect to Badlands (Halsey album). Insufficient notability for a tour-only article demonstrated, but agreed consensus on a redirect targeting, with no specific need for a merge at this moment in time. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands Tour

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Just a list of tourdates and a set list. --wooden superman 15:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the exact same reason as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour (2nd nomination), and add info on notable individual gigs to the associated album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 4 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) 14:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Badlands (Halsey album) as it could be a viable search term; the article already contains a portion on the tour. I agree that it does not seem notable enough for its own article due to a lack of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into Badlands (Halsey album)~~, per the nomination for "Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour". Not notable enough on its own, but this article could be merged and summarized in the album article. Newslinger (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target already contains a section on the tour. We have to be careful in the event of a "merge" consensus, that it is only a summary and that a user doesn't try and add all the tour dates, setlists and other trivia, like they tried to at Hopeless Fountain Kingdom (and pre-emptively at Badlands (Halsey album).) --wooden superman 12:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Badlands (Halsey album). I see that Woodensuperman is in the process of summarizing the tour article's content into a section for the album article. Newslinger (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Badlands (Halsey album) as per Newslinger Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is much better to redirect on Badlands (Halsey album) article. NANExcella (talk) 12:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers Association of Pakistan

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

Poorly written, no coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nursing_in_pakistan for a precedent. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator really needs to do WP:BEFORE; the top farmer's lobby in a certain nation shouldn't need AfD scrutiny, and their barrel-throughs of deleting all things Pakistani have become tiresome. Thanks to those above who actually take WP:SOFIXIT seriously. Nate • (chatter) 22:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with the addition of the sources recently added it seems to just pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Woman

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

I can't find any recent or substantial coverage of this not-yet-released movie; there's very limited coverage that it was in production last year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON. As nom, no evidence of continuing coverage that would make the film notable. Just actor and director announcements from 2017. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 12:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources to prove the film went into production in 2017. As well as the casting announcements, as there was none backing up the casting before. The cast is notable. No need to delete in my opinion. Vmars22 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film has been shot, passes WP:NFF. Nominater clearly didn’t look hard enough. Rusted AutoParts 21:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the above. Film is in post, notable cast, director and producer. Passes WP:NFF. --Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nom) - NFF says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. I don't think announcements of cast members meets that threshold. Regarding the film being in post,[17][[18]]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley Scott production = Notable production. Three major stars (Christina Hendricks,Aaron Paul,Sienna Miller) = notable production. For your requested citations, I changed them out with your CN tag. You're welcome. Here are quotes from them: From Deadline Hollywood, " Jake Scott, who most recently directed the upcoming drama The Burning Woman... "[19] From the Los Angeles Times, "...said Miller, who stars in 'The Burning Woman,' due for release toward the end of the year."[20] Why are you still keeping this AfD open? --Oakshade (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade - even if power~enwiki changed their mind they couldn't close the AfD since there is another delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a nom withdraws an AfD, admins frequently will close based on the nom desiring the keep even if there is a seemingly out-of-consensus delete !vote.--Oakshade (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it doesn't appear the pre-production is particularly notable, the filming has commenced. This is the threshold for having an article per WP:FILMRELEASE as long as there has been reliable secondary coverage of the film, which there has been. BOVINEBOY2008 02:25, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitwise IIT Kharagpur

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

The event is not notable as it has no coverage in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 20:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and support selective content merging to Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Rzvas (talk) 03:15, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Shortcake (2019 series)

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

There is sourcing that verifies that DHX Media acquired 100% stake in the Strawberry Shortcake property. Sources c.2017 claimed a TV series would be produced. But there's been nothing more in two years, and there's no evidence that production has started, and certainly no mention of an airing network or a projected premiere date. So, right now, this looks to pretty clearly fail WP:TVSHOW (and WP:CRYSTALBALL) to me, as a production start cannot even be verified. Suggest draftifying for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks abandoned and not notable, particularly as an abandoned project. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft: No mention of if or when production will begin or if it has begun. Delete for now, or draft it and see if any word comes about it. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 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. If there are proper sources not available on the internet, please create a draft based on the actual sources and cite them. Feel free to ping me to review Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Wissam Ben Awad

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

Possible WP:HOAX. A search found no mention or any coverage in reliable sources -- only Wikipedia mirrors. I was unable to find a mention of this person in any of the books listed in the bibliography. It appears the entire bibliography and some of the text were copied from Bashir Shihab II at the article's creation. The other reference listed, by Patrick M Hammoud (ISBN 9781989763298 in early versions), does not appear to exist. Can anyone find a reliable source for this page? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is built on verifiability, and if this cannot be verified, we need to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable WP:HOAX. Ghazir was ruled by the Hubaysh clan for many hundreds of years (I verified going back to the 1500s, and forward to the 1800s - didn't manage to verify this particular date range). Does not pass V in any event. Note that an IP inserted this into Ghazir as well (undid it), and there might be a few more articles worth looking at (in regards to the IP and SPAs - some of which edited both Ghazir and this article - as well as other articles).Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Examining the article critically - the references to Kato and Boutros... Jazzar Pasha appears too early (born around 1720-30 - prior to the conflict in the 1690s)... Partisans... Al Kosom D tunnels... Hadiar was a psychotic. Although English educated .... (English educated in the 1700s in Lebanon?) .... And it gets wierder as you go through it - Yorge was the commander of the Russian Slav armies in the middle East. Also known as the "summoners' war hero"[6], he was able to gather an army of 100,000 men to help Wissam.[7][6] ..... Boutros had a Bavarian clan on the Lebanese territories .... He was most known for marrying Greek princess Wfaa Hobeikos .... Carcasus' shoulder was the main attraction of the Russian corporation Adwanov. He assisted Boutros in the emperor's counterstrike operations .... Zayad wanted revenge for the massacres in Barcelona due to the betrayal of Madridians ... fille de vache movement against Wissam's taxes .... (fille de vache = cowgirl). WP:HOAX - seems to be an article intended to insert a number of names on Wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am very suspicious of this article, but some of the problems seem to arise from later alterations. see for example this version. However, it bizarrely introduces Barcelona and Madridians. Lebanon was in this period part of the Ottoman Empire, so that any rulers would only have local subordinate authority, which means I have also to be dubious of the subject's notability, even if the content was reliable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lot of historic figures in Lebanon can’t be found on the internet, they can only be found in history books in arabic like “Salibi”, “Abou Saleh”, “Habib” and “Habchi”. Plus Lebanon under ottoman rule had relations with european empires and kingdoms like the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Russian Empire, the British Empire and Kingdom of France 185.81.141.110 (talk) 15:29, 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. Looks alright now. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 06:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator (album)

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

There is insufficient material to warrant an article per WP:NALBUMS, which states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". The editor whose username is Z0 18:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Just released album by a notable artist. Just let the article snowball, and even if the article is not kept, the page should be redirected, not deleted. Let's not waste time here... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging from the performance of the artist's previous album, this album will chart and receive critical attention by the time this deletion discussion is finished. I'll change my vote if that ends up not being the case. Newslinger (talk) 05:48, 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 speedy delete. Obvious spam, prod removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pune International Literary Festival

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

PROD was removed without explaination. A blatant piece of spam. Almost deserves to be deleted for G11. » Shadowowl | talk 18:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. The article reads like a classified ad, and would need to be completely rewritten for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:TNT. Newslinger (talk) 06:17, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Ganesh

AfDs for this article:

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

A possible case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. I redirected this page to Super Singer 6 but it was reverted by the author. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the content producer of this article and the person senthil ganesh do not know me personally or officially. On top of the page, there is a notice saying it is done for money, Wikipedia is known for making content based on proofs and references, so I would like to know the grounds-references for this notice. senthil is doing something notable for the oldest language tamil by being creative and it attracts the masses of the state tamilnadu and the world tamil population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwebproducer (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator it looks like it is WP:TOOSOON. At best it could be redirected to Super Singer 6. Fit India 09:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG passing mentions in newspapers. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say it is not too soon. He has been popular for the past year on the media and for many years in folk singing. All the previous winners of the competition super singer have wiki pages. If the competition can be in wiki, then why not the winner of the competition. dont we have wiki pages for the american idol winners? dont have wiki pages for the wimbledon winners?

Senthil Ganesh is a trend setter by bringing new life to the oldest tamil language by giving songs from the treasure rather than just singing the movie songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwebproducer (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia pages of previous winners of the show from season 1 to season 5 and senthil ganesh is the winner of season 6:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikhil_Mathew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saisharan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwakar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anand_Aravindakshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwebproducer (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user Abishe has provided comments above that senthil ganesh will pass notability if he receives opportunity to be playback singer. Senthil ganesh has already signed up to sing for Oscar winner music director AR Rahman, music director D.Imman and for another song legendary michael jackson of india Prabhu deva is dancing. Also signed up with one of the leading music directors Harris Jayaraj. All the information is cited in the main article. Senthil Ganesh has created revolution in tamil music industry and he won the super singer competition for which people from 4 southern states and few people from north india as well. All the previous winners of the competition have wiki pages

Delete. Not notable yet. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NM, or WP:ENT. The person can qualify for an article after he receives significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (WP:GOLDENRULE). Just not now. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom, who has put it very accurately. Other stuff may exist but who cares?! And, anybody equating Wimbledon to a fly-by regional music competition, is too affected by COI, to be of any good.∯WBG^converse 07:22, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The River Lee

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

advertising, coi The Banner talk 16:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional page with little to no encyclopedic value other then to promote the subject. Fit India 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a famous hotel, article violates WP:PROMO. Spleodrach (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and no other hotels from Ireland have articles. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Croke Park (in same hotel group - Doyle) article was created by the same editor. I have prodded it. Spleodrach (talk) 14:07, 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 Crytek. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RenderDoc

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

Article posses no sources that indicate importance. All six sources mention the tool by name, but only in a trivial manner (along the lines of "we used renderDoc to do [subject of article]". I cannot find any mention of the tool on google either, apart from various forms of documentation. As such, this article fails the general notability guidelines. Xevus11 (talk) 15:54, 19 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 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 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 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The VGSE results are fairly reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge with Crytek or similar. (There might be a better merge target.) --Izno (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Crytek. There is no in-depth coverage from reliable sources, but enough passing mentions that a mention in the company's article would be helpful. This article is short enough to be merged without unbalancing the Crytek article. — Newslinger talk 11:09, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Epstein (screenwriter)

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

The sources do not prove notability as per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. 1 is the subject's own website, 2 is IMDB and 3 is the subject's own blog. The only marginally useful source that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was [21] but as this is an WP:INTERVIEW it is a primary source and not helpful to prove notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... as stated, Epstein is a recognized industry figure with a verifiable body work that has been recognized as notable and worthy of documenting by Wikipedia beforehand in other pages. In addition, other writer-teachers have been allowed articles here before, such Blake Snyder, Robert McKee and Syd Field, so I fail to see why this piece should be singled out for deletion. And no, the relevant cited guidelines do not disprove this.SavageEditor (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is judged on the notability of its subject according to the sources produced and found. The sources do not show notability and this has nothing to do with the notability of any other article similar or not. That said if you feel the other articles do not show notability please feel free to nominate them. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't tell you anything about "feeling" like that. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. Unable to locate any significant biographical information in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some "any significant biographical information in reliable secondary sources": [22] (for example). Here;s also some more recent bio info along with accomplishments: [23] --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's being referenced in industry literature (by which i mean the literature that isn't his own) and one of his books was enthusiastically endorsed by Ken Levine (screenwriter) as "everything you need plus talent". That's in addition to his own fiction-writing work. A frivolous nomination. To the nominator: try searching like that [24] (disregard the obvious other Alex Epsteins of course) next time. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice but still not convinced that he makes the grade as per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. The sources are not in-depth coverage as is required. The writer's guide was a self published book [25] so not what I would call a reliable secondary source. An endorsement of your book by someone famous is nice but a bit thin to show notability as an author I think. But if you have some in depth coverage that I was unable to find before my frivolous nomination I'll be happy to have a look. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added the awards (nominations and wins) and also video game credits among other things. You're welcome. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article is now 2x longer and also renamed (it was misnamed). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is longer (but I believe size doesn't matter thank heavens) but the sources are still too weak. The review of his book is not enough to show he passes WP:NAUTHOR and the WP:Interviews are primary sources so not useful to show notabilty and his own blogs and websites aren't either. I still think it's too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is from being an author of notable works (meaning films, series, and video games, and not just any "his book") and winning or being nominated to awards. And even just his latest work will give you so many interviews: https://www.google.pl/search?q="alex+epstein"+"we+happy+few"&num=50&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. Furthermore, while pages are individually reviewed, I do believe the fact that much of Epstein's work has been deemed notable enough, by Wiki guidelines, to warrant individual pages surely must have some bearing on the worth of this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageEditor (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 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) 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 19:34, 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 merge to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comics). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

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

Consists only of plot summary of a comics series, i.e., fancruft. Per WP:NOTPLOT, a policy, articles must not consist only of "summary-only descriptions of works". Also, this subtopic has no reliable third-party sources and does not appear notable. Sandstein 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comics), maybe? These two seem like a content fork, and I'm not sure why the material isn't summarized better at The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Argento Surfer (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article provided by Argento. Also...why do we seem to have two articles for this series? Seems very...forky. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comics). The main article covers the plots while the nominated article covers the background. The combined article would be more helpful for readers. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 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 merge to Stage illusions. The keep arguments fail to provide any policy-based reasons for keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twister (magic trick)

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability. (Ineligible for PROD, as one was declined in 2006, so bringing it here.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if I'd call the source used in the article as reliable. I did find this - [26]video [27] - in magicpedia - head twister. The "twister" seems to be a variation on this - and I was able to find this Youtube video - [28] - which seems to match the description in the current Wikipedia article. On Magicepedia - twister is described as a combination of the "head twister" and "The Girl Without A Middle" ... After all this - my basic conclusion is that this doesn't pass GNG and that this is a WP:NOTCATALOG fail - we shouldn't be listing every single possible "magical" illusion - there are endless variations of these.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stage illusions. Vorbee (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I gave a reasonable shot at trying to find better references, to much the same conclusion Icewhiz came to. It's a shame because I had this watchlisted, but I feel Stage illusions is the proper home for this. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a popular state magic trick and deserves at least a mention. Czolgolz (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could have merge it as Icewhiz suggests. On another note supporting to merge. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have not suggested a merge, I !voted delete. In regards to the proposed merge to Stage illusions - it doesn't make sense - as that article is just a list of notable illusions with no text and this illusion is listed there (and the list criteria there seems to be wiki notable illusions). In present form, the article is a borderline WP:V fail (though it seems possible to verify this type of illusion was performed) - and definitely does not demonstrate that GNG is met for this particular trick (and I would add that twister is quite possibly used for other magic tricks that "twist").Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad icewhiz, I thought Drewmutt said you voted merge. But as it stands the article doesn't have notability. - - Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a famous magic trick.GentlemanY (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not a valid reason for !voting keep. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? That's a perfect reason. Czolgolz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fame in Wikipedia is established strictly per sources. If a magic trick fells a tree in the forest and no reliable source writes about it, the trick does not exist for Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even just among !votes citing policy there is a fairly split viewpoint, especially regarding merge/delete. Please remember to back explanations with clear policy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stage illusions per other comments. It would work well on that page. It is famous but without references an article cannot stand. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a reference. Czolgolz (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added a history of the illusion with references and a link to one of the many hundreds of youtube performances of this illusion. Czolgolz (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Not a notable magic trick per sources, so there is no reason to have an article about it. The fact that it's very poorly written does not affect this assessment but possibly shows lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines on article creation. For article-worthy magic tricks, see List of magic tricks. (As to YouTube as a reference, see WP:YT, which says that links [to YouTube] should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis and should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. Since there's no notability guideline for this specific topic, it would have to meet WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I haven't managed to find enough coverage in reliable sources to meet this guideline and warrant a stand-alone article. However, I see no reason why the content shouldn't be merged with Stage illusions or at least redirected.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:28, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Sayej

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

WP:BLP, with some advertorial undertones, about a journalist and celebrity interviewer who is not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. Far too many of the references here are primary sources which do not support notability at all, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and YouTube video clips of her doing her job -- and the ones that are reliable sources aren't about her in the sense required to get her over WP:GNG, but (a) glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other things, (b) feature her talking about herself in Q&A format, or (c) tangentially verify a stray fact while failing to mention Nadja Sayej at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source a journalist as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Theres not even one good solid RS to build an article on, only filler/support stuff. And so many many examples of the subjects own work being used to reference things it feels like refspam. Curdle (talk) 21:08, 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) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nom notableEmily Khine (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:57, 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 speedy delete. by Cordless Larry (talk · contribs) "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igal Dahan (TW)" (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igal Dahan (jewellery designer)

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

Jewellery designer of insufficient notability. It's all press releases, listings, and passing mentions (apparently mostly derived from being engaged to Jamie Hilfiger...). Pretty far removed from in-depth, independent coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 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 15:37, 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 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as g4. I see no change since the last creation. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidas de Fuego

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

The article fails WP:GNG. I do not believe there is enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support this having a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 4 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)} 21:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and is an object within a Tv show. This article is the equivalent to having a Channel 6 news article from the Simpsons. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel it. Ths subject is not independently notable. The whole section devoted to the plot is an exercise in WP:OR and it takes up almost all the space. The sources are a press release. -The Gnome (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AA88 above. Strikerforce^Talk 19:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ugly Betty. This is a series, not like the Simpson's analogy. But, it certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG for a standalone article. Ifnord (talk) 19:48, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Child (band)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. The only source that is not Facebook is region-blocked. » Shadowowl | talk 12:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Shadowowl: (ed:fixing ping), you aren't missing anything - it's a dead link. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article, I flagged this for notability in 2012. I subsequently added the "Shreveport Times" item as a 1st ref though it was a mere listing, insufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. Even if independently verified, I don't think the subsequently added mentions of media plays would be sufficient either. Searches on the band's earlier and later names are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Beware of WP:NEXIST as they achieved some local media coverage in reliable newspapers: [29], [30]. One of their albums also got a fairly reliable review: [31]. Some may find that to be enough for WP:NBAND but I think they just barely scrape into criteria #1 of that guideline. Also note that they have two album articles that should be addressed if the band article is deleted: Vesper Belle, Hydrogen Child (Hydrogen Child album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raozan Darul Islam Kamil (M.A) Madrasah

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

Article fails WP:GNG already draftified as WP:ATD as not being ready for mainspace but article creator has recreated article so no choice but to delete now. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DdP beat me to this by a few seconds :) No persistent or in-depth coverage in either news sources or literature. Indeed, the dearth is so absolute that this could alost be made up. In any case, it comprehensively fails the minimum requirements of WP:NCORP. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not a bio but it is so poorly written and sourced that it could be about anything really. it is a Madrasa or school in fact. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only online source is the madrasa's own web site, and it looks like a small local study group with no accreditation. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even listed in List of schools in Bangladesh. Not clear if it teaches primary, secondary or college education or is an extracurricular academic institution / tutoring club. Also consider redirecting to Raozan Upazila#Madrasah where there are "Many More" to come.See vote below AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC) updated 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The official website is for Raozan Darul Islam Fazil Madrasah (রাউজান দারুল ইসলাম ফাজিল মাদ্রাসা) . For those unfamiliar with Islamic education, a fazil madrasah is a tertiary education institution that grants degrees equivalent to bachelor's degrees. A kamil madrasah, the next and highest level, is one that grants degrees equivalent to master's degrees. Raozan Darul Islam Fazil Madrasah is fully accredited by the Ministry of Education[32] (the ministry's database uses a different transliteration, Raujan Darul Islam Fazil Madrasah; you can also filter by its EIN, 104912). Schools of all types in Bangladesh are routinely upgraded from one level to the next to keep pace with the demands of a growing population, so it's possible that this institution recently has been upgraded from fazil to kamil. It is not unusual for such changes to take a year or two to percolate through to official English-language websites. Or the claim of kamil status could be made up. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights. I'm sticking with Delete for now as it appears to still be a Fazil according to the government website [33] and the official self-pub website provided [34]. Then you can create redirects for Raozan Darul Islam Fazil Madrasah and Raujan Darul Islam Fazil Madrasah to go to Raozan Upazila#Madrasah If it got upgraded to Kamil recently then we need a source as well as an update from the government website to make that official. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This helps, but I agree with AngusWOOF that at this time it remains a delete. I'll reconsider if a reliable source can be found for the Kamil claim. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 15:17, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain college of health sciences Lahore

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

Private school. Does not meet WP:NCORP. » Shadowowl | talk 11:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Absolutely no reliable sources. Article looks like a promotional directory listing. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a tertiary educational facility (university), confirmed in Dawn here, and in Gulf News here, more will be needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP, reads as an enrolment guide only. Ajf773 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly super hanging on by a thread weak Keep, only if expanded with appropriate references. As an educational institution, I can see an argument for notability, if appropriate work is done to the article. Right now, the article isn't where it needs to be and I can agree with the "Delete" commenters above, but I don't fault the author for creating. If kept, it will certainly need to be renamed to meet MOS, as well. Strikerforce^Talk 19:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL, which basically requires WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 19:52, 27 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSBS College

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

Seems promotional and not notable. Remagoxer (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Absolutely no reliable sources. Article looks like a poorly written classified ad. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches show promotional ads. Also gets confused with College of Social and Behavioral Sciences which is a college/department at many different universities. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted the material where it described what its accredited and affiliated organizations were. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian post-secondary mascots

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

Useless list, the mascot can be mentioned on the university articles. It also only has 2 sources, of which 1 is Facebook and the other one is about Stfx university, so except 1 university everything is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is hardly encyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list is restricted to public and non-profit post-secondary institutions, a very finite list. These characters are a key part of branding for athletic programs, they are how the institutions represent themselves. How is this "indiscriminate"? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:LC 1 though 4, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1, this guideline seems entirely based on opinion.
- 2, within the United States, there are regularly mainstream media lists about university mascots. Canada has a less developed athletic system--that's not bad, considering the amateur athlete exploitation in America--but that shouldn't disqualify the topic.
- 3, as there are finite public and non-profit schools in Canada, I don't see this as indiscriminate
- 4, these are inherently verifiable.
- 8, if there was an encyclopaedia that included information on universities at the level Wikipedia does, it could justifiably include this.
- 10, could you clarify how membership in this list requires original research? All of these characters could be referenced to school or community newspapers. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the newly expanded references for British Columbia, @Ajf773:? Extensive reliable sources exist, just simply aren't there yet. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Essay WP:LC describes well how contributors should assess the worthiness of a list as a Wikipedia stand-alone article. The fact that not one single item on the contested list has its own article in Wikipedia is quite telling about the list's notability and its worthiness, both. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting list, but I agree that the information it contains could and should be covered within the appropriate institution articles. Strikerforce^Talk 19:45, 27 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 Caba, La Union#Educational institutions. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wenceslao National High School

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

Fails WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 11:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Google Books search is proof that the high school exists. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's barely enough coverage available to us here for a sentence, let alone to pass WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Caba, La Union#Educational institutions where it is listed. This can be expanded later if there are news articles that bring significant coverage of the school beyond a simple entry in a government listing which is what the book above does. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Properties Construction & Bio Technology

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent and discuss the subject significantly. The editor whose username is Z0 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The "integrated townships" article from The Times of India in the external links is defunct, and a similar article shows no connection with the subject of the article (and in any case, isn't significant coverage). — Newslinger talk 09:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Cemetery

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

largely WP:OR. If it weren't it would be much clearer that this is just a run of the mill old cemetery no different than you find in most any city east of the Mississippi John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are sources in the article for its history, and being successor to the original first cemetery in the town, etc. The deletion nominator or anyone else is free to remove the unsourced, silly stuff about hauntings, either to remove it entirely or move it to the Talk page for ridicule. IMO this AFD should not have been opened. Tag or edit instead. The presence of some OR-type stuff is NOT a reason supporting deletion. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. The nomination gives no mention of having performed wp:BEFORE; there basically is no justification to force other editors' attention here. --Doncram (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR issues raised by Nom are Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE. More to the point, this is an early cemetery for the region, and sourcing exists - including books that describe this cemetery's cemeteries ghosties and ghoulies. I added a reliably sourced sentence about a 2005 court case (real estate developers ordered to pay $400,000 to clean the cemetery up after causing damage.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why is it that for certain people, any nomination for delition must be accompanied by an accusation of bad faith? Cemeteries are not inherently notable. There is no coverage of this in detail. There is no more coverage than one would expect for a local cemetery, which I repeat are not inherently notable. There are no historic figures buried there; there are no architecturally significant monuments. The only non run of the mill coverage is the lawsuit thing, which is unusual, but WP:1E. Substitute "Dick's drive in" for the cemetery. You wouldn't expect that lawsuit to elevate good old Dick's to the level of notability, would you. This is a run of the mill local cemetery where the run of the mill local people are buried, nothing more. It does no good to clutter up the encyclopedia with this...it simply gets in the way for people who are looking to actually find information on significant cemeteries. At some point you've got to come to grips that inclusion is not going to be looked at the same way in 2018 going forward as it was in 2008 going back. We just looked the other way at local interest stuff in 2008, we don't any more. That being said, if y'all turn anything that's actually useful to show notability, I'll drop this like it's hot. And I should have probably just redirected to the community. Doubt there would have been any objection. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to have missed Henry Jordan, a blue-linked burial. You are correct to see notable burial s as one of the things that makes a cemetery notable. This one may have others, since this town was a summer resort for very rich industrialists and, well, for rich families, however they made their fortunes. Like the vaudeville impresario below..E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, I did a modest, expand source. There are sources, as User:Doncram and I asserted above, there pretty much always are sources for a large American cemetery established in the 16, 17, or 1800s. I have added sourced material about silly, spooky, ghost stories; added a sourced material about Civil War veteran burials; and some sourced material on the Kohl Family. Charles Kohl, a man who made his fortune in as a vaudeville entrepreneur, his firm was Kohl & Castle, either the or the firm which can support an article, possibly both. Burials of notable people is one of the things that make a cemetery notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in complete agreement with John from Idegon. There is nothing in this article that indicates that this cemetery is notable. It's just another run-of-the-mill cemetery, with perhaps one notable burial. Per WP:1E, a single court case is not sufficient to overcome the notability issues. 72.33.2.25 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)— 72.33.2.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Replacing SPA tag on this IP that was removed.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above tag was removed by myself as blatantly fucking false, having been placed by one editor supporting keeping this. That was improperly reverted by another editor supporting keeping this article. E.M.Gregory, you're quite familiar with noticeboards. Unless you want to visit another time, leave my comment, which unlike yours, is completely factual, alone. John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I also note that the IP had 9 edits, total, 4 of which were on this cemetery. Honestly I cannot figure out what all the strum und drang is about. It's just an quiet, old cemetery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP, please log in with your usual account. Transparency, honesty, and all that. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence is WP:UNCIVIL. Mind your manners. 72.33.2.25 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EM Gregory and Doncram. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disingenuous comment. Check the editor's contributions today, especially those reverting and harassing IP editors. 72.33.2.25 (talk) 20:10, 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. Pending no further opposition from the nominator or other editors, the discussion seems to be tending towards a keep consensus. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sports in Evansville, Indiana

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

no indication the title of this article is a subject of notability. I find no books written about the subject of "Sports in Evansville", I find no magazine articles devoted to the subject of "Sports in Evansville". Of course sports in Evansville is covered in newspapers in Evansville, but I see no evidence anywhere of even a local newspaper article covering an overview of sports in Evansville. This is a fan page, nothing more. It is not an encyclopedic topic. John from Idegon (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, topic is not independently notable. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this must be deleted, you've got several hundred exactly like it for cities far less notable than this one. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Further, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Most importantly, editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes as appears to be the case here. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability. Here, we have significant coverage and reliable sources. --YHoshua (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough content for this as a sub-page of Evansville, Indiana or as a WP:SAL of the various teams (past and present) that have Wikipedia articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable split from the Evansville article. If this could be trimmed to a level that it would fit within the city article, a merge would be fine, but for now better to keep it separate. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 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 merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revenant (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Article is about a non-notable Dungeons and Dragons monster. Sources are all primary. Whpq (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. A mention on the Revenant article in a "popular culture" section might be warranted if there would be more entries in that section. Newslinger (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. The list of merged articles on the the talk page speaks for itself. — Newslinger talk 08:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Dungeons and Dragons. Vorbee (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has requested a withdrawal of the nomination and there are no non-keep !votes (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continental bulldog

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

Fails WP:GNG. Another backyard crossbred "breed" with only breeder recognition, the page's only references are the breed's own webpage and the kennel page of the "breed's" creator. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC). Amended, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nominator request for AfD to be withdrawn, my interpretation is the breed's regognition by the VDH (an authority on dog breeds) confirmed at this link, makes the breed (and thus the article) notable. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cavalryman V31, please provide citations to support your claim that the breeders of the Continental bulldog are backyard dog breeders. IQ125 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The breed has been officially recognized by the Swiss kennel club SKG since 5 December 2004. The citations in the article support the breed is notable and will expand over time, which are the key points to keep an article at Wikipedia. IQ125 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link used to cite that claim of official recognition is not a WP:RS (and it does not seem to work), as stated above, none of the citations used in this article are RS, this appears to be one woman dog breeding operation marketed as a "breed". Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: References to support the breed - 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 IQ125 (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IQ125, thank you for directing me to this link, from my interpretation of WP:RS it is a reliable source from the VDH a notable dog breed authority, and because that organisation recognises this breed, the breed is notable. I have requested the AfD be withdrawn. This information now needs to be included in the page. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:57, 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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Society

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

Not clear what significance this has. It ended many years ago and there are still no reliable sources (WP:RS) on the page to show it's notable (WP:NOTABILITY) or significant. R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could developer analytics be considered a reliable source in this context? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once notable, always notable. The fact that a game has been discontinued does not mean that it is not notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As per RS forbes, quora, Review in GameZebo (See Metacritic), Kotaku and mashable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes link is self published. (Anything on the /sites/ directory is a glorified blog.) I'm not aware of Quora being reliable (self also). Kotaku isn't significant nor is Mashable. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes piece is written by Forbes staff, not a contributor. - hahnch e n 22:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves it in the glorified blog state. No editorial control is exercised over those websites. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 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 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet trivia with no definitive sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closest things to significant coverage here are IGN about people getting married and this brief review in Kotaku. I tend toward delete here. OTOH, it looks like the developer, Playfish, might be notable? --Izno (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a few years, Facebook games were massive. This game was covered in multiple reliable sources mentioned above, also at The Atlantic Gamasutra Adweek - hahnch e n 22:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many RSs, just not in the article yet. Techcrunch article showed they had 20M players, third best Facebook game at the time.[35] StrayBolt (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And WP is filled with articles about things that "ended many years ago". StrayBolt (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage from The Atlantic and Gamasutra is enough to meet WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 11:22, 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. Thie article was clearly baking up the wrong tree. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Tiger Bulldog

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

Completely unreferenced page about what seems to be a designer "breed". The breed's Facebook page appears to be a major source of information, whilst the breed's official body appears to be another Facebook page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Not recognized by any major kennel club or other breed registry. This is more "backyard breeder" promotional junk, the dog-breed equivalent of a garage band. And as with garage bands, most attempts to establish a breed fail long before reaching notability. This one has years to go and low chances. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON, fails GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no sourcing, and a simple Google search identifies the #1 result as being information provided from the breeder. Fails WP:GNG. If there was a single source I'd recommend a merge and redirect to Bulldog, preserving the history, but I can't find one. Also, FWIW, this started as what looks like a cut and paste copyvio. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my attempts to find multiple reliable sources covering topic were not successful. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Could not sniff out anything of substance. -The Gnome (talk) 13:03, 27 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Galea

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

Unsourced, ~~not notable through searches. Doesn't pass WP:Notability~~ Not enough coverage through news searches. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article needs serious reworking but he's a notable contemporary Christian singer and reality television participant from The X Factor (see [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response, but not all X Factor participants have articles, and he if under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) he doesn't solidly meet any of the criteria. If so it's very ambiguous. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of all of the sources you posted, only one qualifies for WP:GNG:

Catholic Digest: OK.
The Catholic Weekly: Not significant coverage. Focuses only on one event.
Word on Fire: Not independent. Interview with the artist.
GIA Publications: Not secondary. Biography from the artist's publisher.
Sandhurst Youth Ministry: Not secondary. The artist is affiliated with this organization.
National Catholic Register: Not independent. Interview with the artist.
Ave Maria Press: Not secondary. Biography from the artist's publisher.
Aleteia: Not significant coverage. Focuses on one song release.
YouTube: Not secondary. Self-published by the artist.

— Newslinger talk 09:38, 20 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 10:50, 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 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO. I have added content and sources (including some news ones).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Coverage from The Sydney Morning Herald and Catholic Digest is enough. — Newslinger talk 09:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources coverage has been identified as shown above, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep searches found sufficient WP:SIGCOV, added another news article to those added by Newslinger.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 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.