Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 July	4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Doheny[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not "inherently" notable in and of itself, but the article makes no credible claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons and doesn't demonstrate any strong reason why he could be considered more notable than most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN, unsuccessful candidates are rarely notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. SportingFlyer talk 07:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, as per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Padding the article doesn't disguise the fact that there's nothing there. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Fails Thazinkoko (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL. Unsuccessful candidates can be notable but I don't think this one is. Besides, paid editing concerns never help. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are almost never notable. We really need to purge several such articles from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he got lots of coverage in Upstate New York media, it was of the "also ran" variety. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Public Safety[edit]

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

None of the sources are actually about the subject, they mention it primarily in the context of author affiliation. The entire thing is drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google news search shows that there is some coverage available; the article just needs some work to add in third-party sources and to remove some of the info added by an account with apparent COI. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Jmertel said, there is enough coverage here for a article on this. There is conflict of interest editing in the page and the sources are third-party, but this doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be kept and expanded on later. Twinky995 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N..Monterey Bay (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of Ghits - looks like adequate RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 5 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva[edit]

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

Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this subject. It appears that virtually all coverage is published in primary sources, which does not establish notability, and none of the primary sources appear to constitute significant coverage either. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not enough media coverage on the individual itself besides being in articles which are to broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have other people with the position of Area Seventy been kept at AfD? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quick search, doesn't look like substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TL;DR: fails GNG, etc. Traditionally, bishops of major denominations "are notable by virtue of their status", even if sourcing is from that denomination. LDS bishops are specifically excluded from that, however (disclaimer: not a Mormon, may contain inaccuracies):

Ref Priesthood (LDS Church), LDS bishops < area authorities (Quorums 3+) < general authorities (Quorums 1-2) < Apostles < First Presidency
The general authorities exercise administrative and ecclesiastical authority. Area presidents are general authorities
Seventies consist of Quorums of up to 70 members aged 55+. Members of Quorum 1 are appointed for life but may go emeritus at 70. Members of Quorum 2 serve until release (but generally for 5-7 years, which would take them into their 60s) -- but may be promoted from Quorum 2 to Quorum 1
The LDS currently has ~109 general authorities, at a ratio of ~1 for every 135K Mormons (about 15m LDS members). There's about 1 bishop for every 250K Catholics, or 1 bishop for every 100K Anglicans, so this is a comparable ratio for general authorities, but not for area authorities.
There's thus a case to be made that (while other denominations' bishops retain de-facto notability) some level of the LDS hierarchy should treated equitably and endowed with the same status. This is probably the general authorities of Quorum 1 and above, though perhaps Quorum 2 as well for simplicity.
The area authorities of Quorums 3+ and below, however, should be considered to have no presumed notability, and would need to demonstrate that they meet GNG or an SNG. No evidence has been provided or found that the article's subject does. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hydronium Hydroxide. The subject is not high up enough to rate as automatically notable, and there are zero sources otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McAllister[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. There are 2 sources the first is a passing mention in routine coverage and the second is his agent. Nothing of interest found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMHO fails GNG and insuffecient RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG .Emily Khine (talk) 18:52, 10 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 Close. When creating deletion discussion, page is a redirect, it should be posted to WP:RfD (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2046 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL IWI (chat) 20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense again. Seriously, who makes these pages? SemiHypercube (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Might be worth be sent to WP:RFD as its a redirect now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreasonable. Nothing more than 5 years in advance. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have a PROD and an AFD at the same time, I am fine with the redirect under NOHURRY and DIY. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:30, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho (RDBMS)[edit]

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

This page was speedily deleted as advertising, that was overturned at deletion review. A number of people wanted the article sent to AfD, so here it is. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DRV participants: @Djm-leighpark:, @Hobit:, @RoySmith:, @Seraphim System:, @Cryptic:, @SmokeyJoe:, @Winged Blades of Godric:, @DGG:, @TonyBallioni:, @Lonehexagon:, @Atlantic306:, @Godsy:. Hut 8.5 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source that looks solid is the textbook, Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation, and Management. I was thinking that could qualify as, It is the subject of instruction at [...] universities or post-graduate programs, stated in WP:NSOFT. It turns out, however, that the authors of that textbook are both faculty at University of Paisley, which is now called University of the West of Scotland, which is where Pyrrho comes from. So, that's not an independent source. My own searching failed to come up with any good sources either. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability from independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Per above..Monterey Bay (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough RS for my liking - Not notable, as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to convince me it's notable. Basie (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thankyou for the comments. My efforts in sourcing the Begg/Connolly book are currently on hold. I can understand I did not previously question possible questionable independence of that source, though the wide distribution of said book might make the question to be asked on Wikipedia about Pyrrho. The significance of the educational DBTechNet initiative do not appear to be appreciated here ... with Pyrrho bundled (probably) in the educational pack for ACID or OCC properties. However in total strictness UWS is associated as a partner in DBTechNet. Despite the developer appearing to be retiring ... which came to light to me during this nomination ... development by that person is likely to continue any we may yet be WP:TOOSOON. I had considered article content improvement but the loss or outside possibility theft means I am likely to forego that. I could also possibly use some search resources down Portsea on Monday ... but Portsea for me is always iffy. I have and am possibly considering a re-direct/merge ... though I know of no suitable existing target I would support ... attempting merge/redirect to Mimer SQL or VoltDB would be too disruptive to the target. I am quite likely to initiate some form of save on Sunday or Monday. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think its great you have done research... but for the average wikipedian who doesn't know the area, we really need independant sources that establish the notability of the subject matter, so articles, books, etc talking about it in a manner that shows its notable and important to its field. There are references here, but they don't qualify as that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unlikely this article will survive unless further sources emerge. I have not chosen not too create a feasible redirect target at this point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:27, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McDonald (college sports coach)[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography that fails notability guidelines at WP:NCOLLATH. Ifnord (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 8 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faction films[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability and Corpdepth. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject could notable if we look at locations and filmography but I only found name mentions after clicking on the find sources tab above.Mia Watson (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage of this organization found in BEFORE. Sources in article do not establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 6 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 Active SETI#Realized projects. Redirects are cheap. See also WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Message from Earth[edit]

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

Another marketing-fueled message to arbitrary outer-space, this one promoted by Bebo. There is some substantial content about sending messages into space as a general concept which might be appropriate at some other article; none of those references discuss this message. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That material appears to already be at Active SETI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough RS - delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active_SETI#Realized_projects and use any useful refs. Praemonitus (talk) 21:53, 9 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 Active SETI#Realized projects. Redirects are cheap. See also WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Earth[edit]

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

This is something between an art piece, a marketing campaign, and a press release; there's no reason to consider it a bona fide attempt at communication or scientific research. It doesn't appear to have been the subject of substantial secondary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely a marketing attempt, I see nothing to make me believe that this is an actual scientific attempt. Moreover, it has very little reliable secondary coverage, and the article itself doesn't have much promise of being made better. Twinky995 (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, nothing to substantiate as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Active_SETI#Realized_projects and include any useful refs. Praemonitus (talk) 21:53, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions; not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As no participation yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the org.'s own website really mention "No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice" as an organization. Curdle (talk) 23:06, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frat Star[edit]

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

No significant coverage, only secondary source is a college newsletter article, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bovineboy: Please let me know what sorts of resources you need for inclusion on this page. No one has raised any such issues with this page since its inception. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelinks212 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over WP:RS. BOVINEBOY2008 22:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no reliable 3rd party sources--just some youtube blurbs. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG.Jmertel23 (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no independant RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:19, 5 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 Mark 16. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Mark[edit]

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

Seems to be referring to Mark 16#Longer ending of Mark. I don't have access to the sources, but this is not a standard term, and appears to be used differently by different authors (Some use the term for the Gospel of Mark as a whole.[1]) The existence of a page here is more likely to confuse further. Daask (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark 16, which is the main article for the topic. St Anselm (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I oppose a redirect, as this is not a common term, and its usage by authors is inconsistent. Daask (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears this page was created by Paul Bedson, an unreliable editor. There was a discussion about deleting a host of articles this editor created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-Abdias, which closed with no consensus on the understanding that each article would be considered on a case-by-case basis. I was unaware of this at the time I made my proposal, but believe it supports deletion. Daask (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark 16 - the term "Psuedo Mark" does get used - but no need to duplicate the article. If there was any information on the identity of the Psuedo Mark individual, who wrote the verse not written by Mark, may be that could justify an article - but there isn't (and certainly not presented here). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- I would have expected this to be about a pseudigraphical work, not merely about the canonical longer ending of that gospel, whose authorship is disputed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 5 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. Enigma^msg 16:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Kaustuv Dasgupta[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, only passing mentions, there is no inherent notability in being a motivational speaker. In my opinion the subject does not qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Fit India 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fit India 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Has got a few awards, which are absolutely non-notable and a few interviews, most of which looks to be paid-promotion.∯WBG^converse 04:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WBG You know about Sai Kaistuv ?? You already removed almost informations and refrences from the article. Why ? Why you told the content is in promotional structure. The information added in the article was true and also cited the reference. Once the article nominated and it was declined by the admin panel. I don’t understand what’s going on here.. ATK55 talk 08:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, there is some coverage but not enough for GNG. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO also the creator appears to have COI issues as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did some BEFORE searching without finding anything substantive. I analyzed the existing refs and posted to Fbofficl (ATK55) at their talk page underneath the AfD notice (this was following an IRC discussion), in an attempt to explain why these refs are not considered notability references. Perhaps something exists in other languages? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 9 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technology company[edit]

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

No content. No indication that technology companies are different than other companies. Articles with more precise and meaningful definitions like Startup company, Internet service provider. or Electronics industry are more useful. Daask (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Technology industry and expand along those lines. bd2412 T 18:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Technology company" or "tech company" are reasonable search terms and incredibly common company descriptors. A cursory look at the article's incoming links shows this. If I google "tech company", the first result is this Wikipedia article and an excerpt from this article is included for the first "people also ask" question (ref). This article could perhaps be merged into a larger article, though nobody has yet articulated why that would be a good or reasonable thing to do.
Daask, I'm curious whether you've made any attempt to research this topic or expand the article to meet your standards. I personally don't think having a short article is necessarily bad, but I also think expanding this article to cover topics such the ambiguous definition of tech company (ref) or tech company culture, sometimes referred to as Silicon Valley culture (ref, ref, ref), and how it relates to start-up culture and work culture generally, would be pretty easy to do.
Taking a small step back, since we have articles such as Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, I think having an article about tech companies is as reasonable as having an article about the New York metropolitan area. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: Guzzetta's article is a good example for discussion. It indicates that "tech company" is a current cultural concept. I could imagine there being an article on that, but there's heavy overlap with Startup company, and this cultural concept more closely matches that article than the examples here (Baidu, Samsung Electronics, Apple, Google, IBM, Lenovo, Huawei, Microsoft, and Oracle). Incidentally, this list is arbitrary and uncited.

The Guzzetta article cites widely varying definitions, with some using it for companies that sell technology, and others for companies that use technology for a competitive advantage. Those definitions have minimal overlap, and should probably not be discussed in the same article per WP:NOTADICT. In that case, we are encouraging the use of an ambiguous term by continuing to keep this article.

A short article isn't bad if it provides information, but this doesn't have any to offer. The abundance of incoming links indicates to me only that the cultural construct of "tech company" has some positive connotations that makes companies want to frame themselves in this way; it does not indicate to me that this is a meaningful term for analysis. Daask (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're encouraging an ambiguous term by documenting it. If we are using this term in our own articles—such as Apple Inc. where we write "[...] American multinational technology company headquartered [...]"—that's a pretty clear indication to me that it's at least a reasonable search term and redirect. That said, I don't think redirecting to an article such as start-up company makes sense since many technology companies are not start-up companies.

While Wikipedia is not a traditional dictionary, the English edition commonly has articles about words or phrases (e.g., 86 (term) or Read my lips: no new taxes).

And the list of technology companies mentioned is arbitrary in the sense that any list of examples will be arbitrary. But it's exactly that: a list of example technology companies. If you wanted, we could say "these companies appear on the Fortune 500 list of technology companies" or similar (ref). Again, that seems like a case for editing, not deleting.

Whether we agree that these companies should be called technology companies or whether we see ambiguity in what it means to be a technology company isn't really relevant to documenting the term/concept here, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are entire books on the subject of technology companies. James500 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with the above. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily satisfies notability. AG47 ^Talk 20:01, 9 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. After two relists there doesn't appear to be any appetite for deleting this right now, although I also note there were no outright pro-Keep votes. If anyone thinks this really needs to go feel free to renominate. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (band)[edit]

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

Source searches (Google) turn up nothing to suggest this band is of particular note per WP:BAND, merely Soundcloud links etc. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions coverage in NME and Dazed & Confused in February 2006 or earlier, but doesn't specify when. Peter James (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: I noticed that but NME is completely online and a Google search for 'site:nme.com "snow white" "olly parker"' yields no results, so if we assume good faith, at the very most it will have been a mention was a passing one in a non-transcribed podcast. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NME wouldn't have had podcasts back then – I'm thinking the most likely mention of this band would have been in their weekly "ones to watch" column. But there were three acts highlighted every week, and I don't know how many years the column was running for, so there must have been literally hundreds of new bands mentioned in this column, which probably isn't going to make this particular one very notable. Anyway, without someone going to the British Library and going through the back copies of the magazine, it's going to be impossible to find out what the mention in the NME actually consisted of. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair point. If they were in the "ones to watch" column, it suggests that they're up-and-coming and we can expect more coverage but it seems that that failed to materialise. It could have just been transitory. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StraussInTheHouse: the further coverage probably failed to materialise because the band split up barely a year after forming. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment Hard to find any sources because of the name is common, although I managed to find a passing mention in Portugeuse - [2]. Not enough to keep I think, unless a source in NME or Dazed & Confused turns up, I think it would be hard to justify keeping it. Hzh (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one, [3], although I still don't think it qualifies under notability criteria, it might be possible to find more, so I'll remove my vote for delete for now and see if I can find more. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:43, 3 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. The article was speedily deleted by Bbb23 at 00:02, July 10, 2018 per WP:CSD#G5. Mz7 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Clay (writer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a screenwriter, who has neither a strong notability claim under our notability standards for screenwriters nor strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The strongest notability claim here is that he wrote the screenplay for a film that hasn't even started filming yet, and the references are IMDb, a YouTube video and a self-published profile on a LinkedIn clone for filmmakers -- none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which every creative professional is automatically entitled to have an article just because he and his work exist -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, verifying an achievement that constitutes a credible notability claim, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Austin (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who has had mostly minor roles and the most coverage he's received is dating someone who is questionably notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - doesn't meet criteria for actor Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty clearly fails WP:NACTOR for now. Nomader (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 06:07, 8 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Worship[edit]

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

non-notable recording. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSeems to fail WP:GNG. Redirect to Jack Hayford.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to show it might pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG—White Shadows ^{New and improved!} 05:03, 10 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajatsubhra Majumdar[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone search Bengali-language sources for articles about this writer? Anything that would verify or disprove the claim of "best-sellers" would be particularly welcome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali Sood[edit]

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

~~Non notable actress who won a non notable award, once. WP:GNG is unsatisfied. 2Joules (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoes not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO .And there is no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo substantial RS - does not meet WP:ACTORBIO Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 6 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajatsubhra Majumdar[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone search Bengali-language sources for articles about this writer? Anything that would verify or disprove the claim of "best-sellers" would be particularly welcome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 6. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Casten[edit]

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

unelected candidate for political office, not otherwise notable Vexations (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, which states "If elections are worthy of inclusion, it logically follows that information on the candidates in those elections should be included." This particular race has been recognized as one of the most significant US Congressional races of 2018.^[1]^[2] Furthermore, a significant portion of the article's content is drawn from reliable sources that were published years before the campaign began, demonstrating the subject's notability independent of the campaign.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]Cvm1983 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "House races offer Democrats best shot at claiming a chamber in Congress". ABC News.
^ "Democrats face key test of Trump-era suburban strategy". Politico.
^ Steiner, Christopher. "Gray Is The New Green". www.forbes.com.
^ Van, Jon. "Cash infusion heats up prospects for recycled-energy business". www.chicagotribune.com/.
^ Lydersen, Kari. "Q&A: Why combined heat and power is a 'no-brainer'". energynews.us.
^ Kanellos, Michael. "Will Waste Heat Be Bigger Than Solar?". www.greentechmedia.com.

- Comment you cited deprecated 12-year-old policy. Per WP:NPOL, candidates are not inherently notable. SportingFlyer talk 07:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that "a significant portion of the article's content is drawn from reliable sources that were published years before the campaign began". Here's the list of sources sorted by year:

- - 2007
    - http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-11-16/business/0711150938_1_recycled-renewable-energy1 November 16, 2007
  - 2008
    - https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0915/054.html#6f8ebcdd6d661 Aug 28, 2008
  - 2009
    - https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/will-waste-heat-be-bigger-than-solar-5577#gs.eR_yxFU1 January 24, 2009
  - 2011
    - https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/about/fellowships/emerging-leaders/emerging-leaders-class-20111 2011
    - https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/ELReport2011_ImmigrationDebate.pdf1 2011
  - 2014
    - https://energynews.us/2014/06/06/midwest/qa-why-combined-heat-and-power-is-a-no-brainer/1 2014/06/06
  - 2016
    - https://strattonreport.com/news/recycled-energy-development-sells-121-mw-tri-generation-portfolio-ironclad-energy-partners/1 September 22, 2016
  - 2017
    - http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-nvs-sean-casten-congress-roskam-st-0908-20170907-story.html1 September 7, 2017 4:50 PM
  - 2018
    - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-us--illinois-primary-news-guide-20180320-story.html1 March 22, 2018, 2:00 PM
    - http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180207/submitted/302079523/1 2018/02/07
    - http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180207/submitted/302079523/1 updated: 2/13/2018 12:21 PM
    - https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/6th-congressional-district-democratic-candidate-sean-casten-2018-illinois-primary/1 03/22/2018
    - https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/6th-congressional-district-democratic-candidate-sean-casten-2018-illinois-primary/1 03/22/2018
    - https://ieanea.org/2018/05/16/illinois-education-association-recommends-sean-casten-for-6th-congressional-seat/1 Maty 16, 2018
    - https://labortribune.com/illinois-afl-cio-general-election-endorsements/1 June 26, 2018
    - https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2018/05/30/naral-pro-choice-america-endorses-sean-casten-for-congress/1 2018/05/30
  - undated, not related to candidacy
  - undated, related to candidacy

Vexations (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I mean I created the article as a redirect and someone took the liberty in actually creating the article. I've seen Wikipedia articles of failed U.S. House Rep. nominees and they're far shorter than this. Seeing Casten is the Democratic nominee and article is in good shape, I think he warrants an article. If not, keep it as a redirect how I normally intended the article to be until the election results are in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see anything in the article which is either about him independent of his campaign/feature articles on him or is non-routine political coverage. Feels promotional to me. A redirect is proper, adding necessary information to the election page. Delete if no redirect consensus. SportingFlyer talk 07:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As the purpose of this page seems to be to promote a candidate. Certainly their "position" statements need to be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. Creator is picking the wrong interpretation of what our notability standards for politicians means — it does not mean that every candidate is guaranteed his own standalone biographical article just for existing, it only means that the election article should include the candidates' names in e.g. tables of election results rather than just listing the winners. The actual rule for making a candidate eligible for a Wikipedia article is that either he must already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or the media coverage needs to explode to the point that he's got a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates (the Christine O'Donnell path.) But the vast majority of the references here are primary sources that do not support notability at all — and the little bit that's actually media coverage is simply local media coverage of the type and depth that's simply expected to routinely exist for every candidate everywhere, so it's not close to enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand how you can make the assertion that "the vast majority of the references here are primary sources" when only 7 of the 30 references are to the campaign website, and those were only used to describe his positions, for which there are very few other possible sources. This use of a campaign website appears to be common and generally uncontroversial. Aside from news coverage of the campaign (which now includes articles from several national publications), there are several articles from national publications (including a 1600-word feature in Forbes) that were published years before the campaign began.Cvm1983 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His own campaign site is not the only thing that gets counted as a primary source. "Corporate Collaboration Council" is also a primary source that does not assist in building notability, as it's his "staff" profile on the website of an organization he's directly affiliated with. "Bloomberg Executive Profile & Biography" is also a primary source that does not assist in building notability, because it's a routine directory in which any CEO of any company can have themselves added, so having a profile on there is not evidence that he's special. Any organizational endorsement that's "sourced" to that organization's own self-published website about itself, rather than to media coverage about the endorsement, is also a primary source that does not assist in building notability. Any source which is simply his standard "candidate profile" on a website where every candidate gets to have a candidate profile, or is a Q&A interview in which he's answering the same set of questions that every other candidate also gets, is also a primary source that does not assist notability, because he's in direct personal control of what it says about him. Primary sources doesn't just mean his own campaign website; it means any source where he has any form of personal affiliation or personal control over what the source says about him.

And "Energy News Network" and "Green Tech Media", while not primary sources per se, still aren't notability builders for different reasons: Energy News is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about something other than himself, so he fails to be the subject of the source, and Green Tech Media is a corporate blog, not an independent or reliable media outlet.

Literally the only citations here that would be acceptable reliable source coverage at all are #4, #5, #11, #12, #16 and #17 — all of the others are some form or other of primary sourcing that does not assist in establishing a candidate as notable enough. But Casten isn't the subject of 12, 16 or 17 — they all just glancingly mention his name in the process of being comprehensive coverage of all the Illinois primaries, rather than singling Casten out for dedicated attention in his own right, so they do not constitute evidence that his candidacy is a special case over and above everybody else who's also named in the same article. And #11 is routine coverage of his candidacy announcement in his own district's local newspaper, which does not help to establish a candidate as notable because every candidate always gets one of those, so it still doesn't mark his candidacy out as somehow more notable than everybody else's candidacy.

Which means that ultimately I can evaluate notability here solely on the basis of #4 and #5. And "preexisting notability for other reasons" is not covered off for a political candidate just because you can show one or two pieces of coverage that predate the candidacy — if he weren't a candidate at all, and you were trying to get this article into Wikipedia purely on "clean energy entrepreneur" grounds, those two sources would not have been enough coverage all by themselves to get him over GNG for that. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018. Candidates for the U.S. House should be redirected to the appropriate page about the campaign. Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign material and information. All relevant (reliably sourced) information about the nature of the campaign, including notable endorsements and polling, can be placed on the page about the election. Enos733 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability. I can see an argument for removing specific policy positions but I see no reason to remove the rest of the article regarding his work in the clean energy field. These sections are supported by plenty of independent sources and news articles, some of which are before his involvement in politics. He has been involved in some significant organizations and discussions in the clean energy field and I see no reason why that wouldn't be sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I added some additional sourcing to the article that might help. A link to the campaign site would probably be sufficient for current policy positions but the rest should be kept. Bucketship (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable before he became a candidate, and still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018. Simply being on the ballot for an election does not make you notable. I agree with everyone here who has cited WP:NPOL.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 05:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this topic has not achieved the lasting significance required to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bomai incident[edit]

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

See no coverage for this incident beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the article has presence on Wiki for years, the failure to gain any notability justifies delete. My Lord (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Eastmain (talk • contribs)
Delete.Fails WPNOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage after 2009 . Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup .Now we cannot have standalone article for each and every death in the conflict. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. But time has proven that subject totally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good catches by the nom on this string of articles. Surely, recentism is responsible for the creation of these articles, but NOTNEWS explains clearly why routine coverage does not produce notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The incident continued to be covered by WP:RS even 8 years after it took place, and the inquiry remains open (see the article refs). With regard to the "routine" coverage claim, this claim for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. The policy is aimed against entertainment news. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case on the contrary is a notable army crime. Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting a major army crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. I can only recommend re-reading the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Finally, the unsound arguments in favor of NOTNEWS are trumped by WP:NCRIME, which reads «Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act», so keeping this article ought to be adjudicated by default, as clearly the coverage has been extensive and continues as of 2017. XavierItzm (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is regarding crossfire casualties, I dont agree with calling the incident as an Army crime. Please see the reply by Pharaoh below. I concur with his observations, In light of these would you like to update your !Vote. --DBig Xray 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of indication that why this incident deserves an article given the lack of coverage days after the occurrence. Orientls (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one of the Ref added here by another keep vote is not connected with this incident but with a completely different 2017 incident of manhandling of four female members.Further Kashmir Life is not WP:RS.Hence the claim that it is covered in WP:RS even after 8 years is incorrect.Further this involves the Indian army and it comes within Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act hence no public trial and is seen as a Army operations and and hence WP:NCRIME does not apply.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LASTING. If there is some content worth keeping, that can be selectively merged into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya 29 18:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS 2 civilians killed in crossfire between the terrorists and the army. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT. WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage. Agree with Pharaoh--DBig Xray 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that while this topic might be suitable for a newspaper, its lack of lasting significance suggests that it may not be suitable for an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Doodhipora killing[edit]

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

See no coverage for this incident beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the article has presence on Wiki for years, the failure to gain any notability justifies delete. My Lord (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. 23:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Eastmain (talk • contribs)
delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. But further evidence overtime has proven that subject totally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. Lack of notability and significance. Kraose (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOTNEWS Ankit2 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:RS criteria (and WP:NOTNEWS as cited by other uses above). Out of the seven sources cited, at least four do not even meet the criteria for being reliable sources. --RaviC (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS Article about 4 civilians killed in crossfire between army and militants, and then ongoing case nothing that makes it notable. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT (I clarify that I have been a significant contributor to this article)--DBig Xray 11:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya 29 18:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING . Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup..Further this involves the Indian army and it comes within Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and is seen as a Army operations and there is no followup .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this topic has not achieved the lasting significance required to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. This decision does not prejudice the creation of a broad list article for these kinds of events in general, as Vanamonde93 suggested. Mz7 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramban firing incident[edit]

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

See no coverage for this incident beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the article has presence on Wiki for years, the failure to gain any notability justifies delete. My Lord (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was relevant only during July 2013. We are in July 2018 now. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Fails WPNOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage after July 2013. Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup .Now we cannot have standalone article for each and every death or firing in the conflict Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete article created ~~by SPA~~ following the recent news coverage of that time. No longer applicable and totally WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a claim to lasting notability is hard to make here, but these incidents aren't trivialities either; the most reasonable course is to merge them all to a "list of deaths from police firing in Jammu and Kashmir" or something along those lines. As an aside, it's a bit rich to refer to an editor with 38,000+ edits as a "single purpose account" and argue to delete on those grounds. Vanamonde (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of search results after the initial reporting of the incident. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya 29 18:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS Violent crowd attacked forces and in the ensuing firing 4 rioters got killed. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT--DBig Xray 19:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:31, 11 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. Mz7 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Handwara incident[edit]

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

Don't see any evidence if this subject had any coverage after April 2016. Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. My Lord (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. 23:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Eastmain (talk • contribs)
Delete.Fails WPNOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage after April 2016. Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup .Now at best these can be included if there is a list not clearly not notable for a standalone article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. But now further observations show that subject totally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In concurrence with what Pharaoh of Wizards said. Ankit2 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Wikipedia covers multiple murders in the United States, it ought to cover multiple killings in India. Murder is more notable than bicycle theft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent retaliation is irrelevant. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING are the concerns. If an incident about bicycle robbery has received coverage for years then it will have it's own article. Lorstaking (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of Murders. In case you are not aware there exists a seperate site known as Murderpedia, which Wikipedia is not. --DBig Xray 19:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:LASTING. Selective merge into Human rights abuses in Kashmir if some content merits merge. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya 29 18:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS Violent crowd attacked forces and in the ensuing firing 5 rioters got killed. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT--DBig Xray 19:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Due to low participation in this discussion, this article may be undeleted on request. Mz7 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Sargent[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. This was written by an editor named "SoLuvablePublicity", so it is clearly some form of conflict of interest editing -- and two of its three sources are advertorial profiles on user-generated artist PR websites which do not count as notability-assisting sources, while the third is a dead link to what appears to have been a fashion blog. Nothing stated here passes any of NMUSIC #2 through #12, and the sources do not represent reliable source coverage for the purposes of getting him over the "notable because sources exist" bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:28, 4 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. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. While a fair amount of discourse has occurred here, only three users have actually provided opinions. Furthermore, after two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has arisen. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predimed[edit]

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

This is a promotional book report about a primary source, with some SYN filler and a "newsy" hook about retraction and republication. There are wacky promotional claims like "there is no other dietary pattern with such a strong evidence of cardiovascular benefit". About the retraction/republication -- there will be plenty of news-cycle driven refs in the popular media about the retraction/republication which are a) not WP:MEDRS and b) not independent of that event. It will take time for reviews to come out that deal with the revised paper and we do not know yet what "accepted knowledge" is with regard to this paper in light of the revision so this is WP:TOOSOON with regard to that. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Isn't PREDIMED the subject of these two New York Times articles dated 2013 and 2018? If yes, how can it not pass WP:GNG and be WP:TOOSOON? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/health/mediterranean-diet-can-cut-heart-disease-study-finds.html
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/health/mediterranean-diet-heart-disease.html

See WP:MEDREV - we don't use popular media that way for content about health. Which is exactly what I said in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... What do you make of the results in Google scholar or HighBeam then? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar does not give you MEDRS results. You need to search pubmed and look for reviews, or look for clinical guidelines and the like. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No judgement either way about keeping or deleting (yet), but I note that the deletion nomination conflates the PREDIMED trial – the nominal subject of the article, involving a fairly large, randomized prospective trial of various dietary interventions – with a recently-retracted-and-republished NEJM paper based on the PREDIMED data set.
A cursory PubMed search finds more than 130 publications that mention "PREDIMED" in their titles. A lot of those appear to be analyses based on the PREDIMED data and trial population, along with some commentary on the trial.
In other words, while the NEJM paper attracted a lot of media attention (both when it was initially published in 2013, and after its recent retraction and republication) it was definitely not the only output of the PREDIMED trial. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point well taken (although the primary source references are not useful to us). The nomination is basically TNT. This page is not a WP article but a book report and a promotional one at that. On top of that, given the uncertainty now about the what the results of this trial mean, we should trash this and repost when that is more clear. It might take a year for things to shake out. This is yet another reason why building a page around primary sources is a bad idea. Even if we were to try to rewrite this now using secondary sources, what would we say, at this time? Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, I'm not really sure what you mean when you keep repeating "book report". Perhaps you could stick to a less figurative description?)

Right now, I'm inclined towards WhatamIdoing's perspective at WT:MED about how we should address clinical trials on Wikipedia. I'm just going to quote his comment here:

Articles about clinical trials should usually be treated more like historical events than like scientific research. The question for the article to answer is "Who did what, when, and where?" rather than "Did the result get statistically significant results while following accepted scientific standards?" In some cases, the fact of a paper being retracted is what makes the event notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the question we should be asking about this trial (or any other) is whether or not it was sufficiently notable for coverage, not necessarily whether its results and interpretation have been fully settled. Now that's its own can of worms—how should we evaluate 'notability' for clinical trials? Size of population, duration of trial and followup, importance of the clinical question(s), involvement of reputable organizations, and existence of independent coverage might all be factors to consider; I'm sure there are others, as well. While a trial's result (if known) is certainly a factor, it should not be the exclusive criterion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See book report. It is something grade school students do in the US. It isn't colorful it is what this page was, when I nominated it.

If we are going to treat it like some past event, then we should find references about the trial and summarize them. The question becomes, are their sufficient independent sources with significant discussion of the topic? Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but I know what a book report is—I'm just trying to figure out exactly how it applies here, and how it's a negative description in this context. (I presume you're intending it to be a pejorative description.) A well-written "book report" is probably how we should aim to cover most topics: a factual summary of major 'characters' and events, followed by a discussion of important 'related works' and relevant context to establish notability and impact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very blatant WP:GNG pass. In addition to the very detailed two New York Times articles already mentioned above, in addition to the hundreds (thousands) of results in Google Scholar, to the 130 results in PubMed, I would just like to share a couple of articles I found in El Mundo, the Spanish newspaper: 2006 2013 2014 and in El Pais, the Spanish newspaper: 2004 2013 2018. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Cherie Polite[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:ENT and after a review of the sources, WP:GNG (none are about her.) SportingFlyer talk 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tia is a well known cosplayer within the Washington, D.C area that cohosted the Funk Parade, was one of the cospalyers featured in Four Days at Dragon*Con and featured on the Black Girl Nerds for the 28 days of black cosplay. Her interview on WJLA-TV in DC about her should pass the WP:GNG and WP:ENT because it established her as known cosplayer in the DMV. Her shortfilm also won in the Cinemax sponsored the Urban Action Showcase and Expo that is known in the martial arts world. This alone should pass WP:FILMMAKER. Livinginthepink (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ENT and WP:FILMMAKER require more than what's shown here. The source cited to show she won an award has 9 and 10 Youtube views, and Wikipedia requires more than one local television interview to pass WP:GNG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG, the WP:FILMMAKER , and the WP:ENTERTAINER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 00:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:03, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CapeRay Medical[edit]

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

Duplicate of the article CapeRay Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Better merge and add anew heading in CapeRay article. Mia Watson (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What new heading? I cant see anything which is not already included. Rathfelder (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am also including the twin page, CapeRay, in this nomination.

That page was created on the same day by the same person as a duplicate of this page. They are both obvious promotion and SEO work and need to be cleaned out of WP. Pinging User:Rathfelder and User:Mia Watson the only people who have !voted so far Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete both (in case that is not clear) Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both There is no indication of notability--just press releases, including some from the sponsoring university. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I redid the article somewhat, added some sources, and redirected the CapeRay Medical page to just CapeRay. Judging by the amount of stuff I found, it seems to be pretty well known in South Africa. Where are the refs? (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. Just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPIP sourcing, are you kidding me? I added sources to locally reputable independent coverage (see the sources from Enterprise Africa, Africa Outlook, and IT Web), and it seems awfully eurocentric to reject them as mere self-promotion. The company is well known in South Africa, there is plenty of information about it, and it is a pioneer in breast cancer diagnostics. That is enough to pass NCORP and the article (CapeRay) should stand as well. Where are the refs? (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. It's sufficiently notable for an article, and I never suggested it wasnt.Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, so shouldn't the redirect already suffice?Where are the refs? (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Small company. Sources in article are mainly PR driven or not independent of the company. BEFORE doesn't show much else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per above. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and are all based on company announcements and other promo PR. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both CapeRay Medical and CapeRay.
Both articles were simultaneously created with near identical content by same single-purpose user (see Special:Contributions/Andrewb1000). And today, +7 years after creations, there is still no real meat, - in fact: The company's own story telling (http://www.caperay.com/index.php/our-history) is showing comparable encyclopedic value.
I think this is a case of someone having created an article (identical twins) with sufficiently bland verbiage to not violate NPOV, and Wikipedians never having bothered to check notability. - Notability or not, if an article has failed the test of time, not providing encyclopedic value to the world, then: Delete it from Wikipedia (a potentially stale rephrased write-up of a primary source, does not serve any reader's interest). -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only PR or not independent references found Heshiv (talk) 10:27, 9 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 procedural close per WP:DENY. The OP was identified and blocked as a sock. WP:DENY dictates that this be closed on those grounds. This close is w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination should anyone be so inclined. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Baking Company[edit]

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

Only coverage seems to be from February 2018, and that too is pretty trivial. It appears to be an everyday baking company that introduced a new product that was picked up by a couple of media outlets for thier daily puff piece. Not notable enough for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added additional sources for this bakery which has been in existence since 1923, including this from 2011. There are enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by the company and a company officer, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND.
Keep Good history and track, I am sure there's more even when the internet wasn't discovered. Mia Watson (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC) SockSTRIKE 2Joules (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not the test for notability. There must be two "intellectually independent" references to establish notability. So article that extensively rely on information from company sources without intellectually independent analysis/opinion (like the article from 2011 above) fails WP:ORGIND.
Delete and possibly rewrite since the only notability if any is the single product Pretzilla, that would be the more appropriate subject. DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced that that references don't exist. Unfortunately I don't have access to the books and I can't say either way whether they establish notability or not but this and this exists and (at least) mention the bakery. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references and expanded the article a bit. I have also posted a {{requested move}} to Pretzilla Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eastmain, the requested move failed. I agree that an article on Pretzilla might stand a better chance of meeting notability guidelines that the company. Do you still believe the company is notable in its own right? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference that I can access meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references added by Eastmain may help the establishment of the notability of Pretzilla, but it doesn't establish the notability of the company. As it stands, notability is not inherited. Neither is Wikipedia a substitute for a corporate website or a Yellow Pages. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following a request on my talk and after reviewing the discussion more closely I have decided to revert my "No Consensus" close and relist this discussion. I believe the weight of WP:PAG argument currently favors deletion though the consensus to that end is not clear enough for me to close on that basis. I am therefore re-opening this for further discussion which should focus on the quality of the available sources and whether or not they are sufficient to ring the WP:N bell.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are most definitely more sources to be added that support notability, including this article from July 2018 Baking Business "Pretzilla: Creating a Story Behind the Brand". Other companies also have very similar entries that are not challenged, including Amoroso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoroso%27s_Baking_Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. The reference relies entirely on quotations from company execs with no intellectually independent anaylsis/opinion, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The references also is not significant coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV and contains no in-depth information about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. If there are other sources, please list them and we can see if they meet the criteria. Also, [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|Wikipedia has lots of articles] and if you feel they don't meet the criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Genuine question - how could a profile of a company by that industry's leading publication not be considered 1) independent and 2) notable? By necessity, a profile will almost always include questions and answers from the company's executives. It also demonstrates an independent reporter's opinion that they found the company notable enough to profile. You cannot purchase these profiles. I will endeavor to add more sources to meet your criteria, I'm just having trouble understanding why the current sources are not sufficient. Thanks for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Hi Jayfish420, please read WP:NCORP and in particular the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH sections. I suspect you are misinterpreting the definition of "independent". It does not mean that the publisher and the company have no "links" as such - it means that the opinions/analysis provided in the publication is *intellectually* independent. In the reference you provided, there is no independent opinion/analysis, everything has been provided by the company or company sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Thanks for that guidance. I'm working on uploading appropriate supporting material now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember, there are a number of ways to prove a topics relevance, outside of sourcing. The company's 'Pretzilla' brand appears to be the leader in pretzel buns. Through an online shopping search for pretzel buns, 'Pretzilla' brand consistently is at the top or very near it across in different shopping sites.1 2. Henry ^TALK 03:36, 11 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TCGplayer[edit]

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

Not notable under company and organization notability guidelines. Some sources in Google and has $10 million value but this is not enough to pass the guideline.

Extensively covered by www.syracuse.com and other marketing firms, but little to no independent news. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much in the article - a gaming card maker (founded 1998) gets a $10 million investment. That's it. Raising funds does not pass WP:NCORP, neither does being around since 1998. At best "not yet". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .It was founded in 1998 with a $10 million investment but it is not clear how is specific company is notable amongst thousands of its same size.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 9 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 Hopeless Fountain Kingdom. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 15:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information like this is better left at fansites. A few individual shows in this tour received some news coverage, and Billboard reported on how much money was made, but that information could be mentioned briefly at the album article Hopeless Fountain Kingdom. Per WP:NTOUR the tour did not receive coverage as an entity in its own right, beyond individual gigs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge into the article about the album, as it is a major factor of the album and announcement articles from independent sources about the tour's final leg can be found through a Google News search. However, it's not enough for a separate article about the tour. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:21, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still the Same Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Just a list of tour dates and a set list. --wooden superman 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 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]

Delete - Advance announcements of the tour got some pretty good media notice (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]) as their first tour in a while, but even those are still little more than brief mentions of the tour's existence followed by lists of dates. Per WP:NTOUR, the tour does not have enough notability as an event in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. Article was Speedy Deleted (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Weiss (W2O Group)[edit]

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

I think he is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Of the 13 references, 3 are listings sites, 5 are about the company. Of the others, the sentence Jim Weiss is founder, chairman, CEO, and owner of W2O Group, a top-ranked independent network appears in two of them, indicating it self written or press release. The rest are primary source, no secondary sources. scope_creep (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if some admin doesn't speedy it first). single purpose account, promotional, notability issues. Smells like paid editing to me. -- œ^™ 08:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Athaenara speedy deleted the article last night I think, so this discussion is moot. Withdrawn nomination scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corvina Nielsen[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced BLP (only listed reference is to an archived version of her personal website). Appears to be purely promotional. A Google news search for the subject delivers no results. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP with no third-party sources and none available. Given the references starts: "This project is born out of the experiences of her personal test and trials...", I almost want to add WP:NOTTRIBUTE to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, but the list is crowded enough. The article appears to have been recreated at least twice after deletion (one in the log and also "Corvina nielsen"). It's time to put this to bed. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find nothing beyond the usual run of the mill listings at MP3 and streaming sites. Existence does not prove notability and the article is a pretty clumsy attempt at self-promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 6 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no other contributions (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuren (Singer)[edit]

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

~~Run of the mill rapper, of which there are plenty. No RS coverage. 2Joules (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Whores[edit]

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

Not sure how the article survived for over a decade, but it does not establish the notability of the band. Neither do the versions in other languages (I've just requested the speedy deletion of the PT version, by the way). Searches do not return enough relevant results (couple of links in Finnish, but I could not determine their relevance). Should the article be deleted, articles about the band's releases may be deleted next. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 14:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do nothing to establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:04, 8 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. Sandstein 19:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Abdul jabbar[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No evidence of notability on the net, and hardly any trace for that matter. - ක - (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: referenced in Wisden India. The sources are probably out there.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Times of India. I'll try to put a couple of links in the article in the next day or two, I think the subject is noteworthy, even though the page evidently needs improvement.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Express T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBS T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified above that will enable the improvement of the article as the subject passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that I have edited the article, I think there is a little more substance to it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 21:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and further references would be available in the Tamil Language .Note capitalised the article to S. M. Abdul Jabbar.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:55, 5 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 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheer[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for the company. The refs are all product reviews. Nothing about the company. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three of the 4 refs are review sites. No secondary sources. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 6 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 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George L. McLaird[edit]

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

Almost every citation fails verification; mostly seems to be citation spam for the organizations with which he has worked. There appears to be a COI; and appears to be original research. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR; significant RS coverage not found. Appears to be a tribute page, so fails WP:PROMO as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 8 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 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Tottenham Hotspur L.F.C. season[edit]

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

Season fails WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, no indication of wider GNG beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points, Texas[edit]

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

Not notable Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability: This is my first time nominating an article for deletion. The subject is not notable, and cites a single source from the Texas Handbook Online [8]. This series is normally reliable, but it only cites one source: ""Five Points," Ellis County TXGenWeb website (http://www.rootsweb.com/~txellis/ghost-towns/five.htm)." The THO article itself makes only a few claims for notability: that is was a "strategic stage coach locations" and a "gin mill" in the 1800s. Five Points is unincorporated and had as few as 10 residents as recently as 2000. A Google search led to some real estate and geneology web sites, and only the substantial articles about "Five Points" linked to similarly named places in Dallas and San Antonio. I do not see a path to notability. [Excerpted from my talk page.] Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally, we afford wide latitude to named, populated places (even those that aren't really much-populated anymore). Five Points (in Ellis County, Texas) unquestionably exists. It is mentioned in a 1959 storm damage report, in a 1960s soil survey and in the environmnetal impact study for the Superconducting Supercollider site selection. The most comprehensive discussion of the community and its history appears to be in this publication of the Ellis County Genealogical Society; that's not necessarily a high-quality source (and I'd like to see more than snippet view before basing much text off of it), but I don't see any prima facie reason to discard it entirely. I suspect there will also be period newspaper sources from when it was a more influential location (although the rather generic name does make searching for them somewhat of a challenge). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage: I wrote a long response which I lost because of an edit conflict. Long story short, thanks for your response and for making me aware of the GEOPLAN guideline. I had never read it. I still think the article failed to meet the prima facie notability guideline, but that appears to be moot. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Texas Handbook Online is reliable and we are a gazetteer or some such phrase about populated places. Also, I expanded the article slightly to mention the Five Points Cotton Gin, place for two scenes in 1984 Sally Field / Danny Glover drama Places in the Heart, covered in a 2008 blog. There are cotton-farming related historic sites in Ellis County, e.g. the Ennis Cotton Press, and there might be one but I am not immediately finding an NRHP or Texas Historic Site historic site listing specifically about this cotton gin; maybe someone else will have more skill/luck searching. The 2008 blog mentioned some equipment removal / deterioration of the site. It is worth mentioning, still, in a short article about Five Points. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is also mentioned in Texas Dept of Transportation documentation about Farm to Market Road 876. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw or Keep. In light of the latest edits, I now agree that notability is established. If it's an option, I will withdraw my nomination. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:52, 3 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) Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kendy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. His appearances with Chapecoense have so far been only in the Campeonato Catarinense, which is not a fully-professional league. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence below that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may not have played in an FPL-listed league, but has played in Campeonato Catarinense and Brazilian Primeira Liga matches which included two clubs from FPL-listed leagues. Avai v. Chapecoense, Serie B vs. A club. Also, Cruzeiro v. Chapecoense, both Serie A clubs. R96Skinner (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NFOOTY by playing in a competitive match between two teams from fully professional leagues. Even if it wasn't a league match, that's still sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY not the subject is only 20 years and is currently playing his just made his debut.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GiantSnowman and nom said fail WP:NFOOTY while @Smartyllama, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and Fenix down: says pass WP:NFOOTY, can you give some evidence?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Hhkohh: the sources are noted both in the AfD above and in the article itself (the Soccerway reference). Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: Thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down and Hhkohh: - unsure why this has been relished when there is clear consensus he is notable? Giant Snowman 13:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave you to change your mind. Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 3 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 as a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 21:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third Reality[edit]

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

Lank of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:33, 3 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 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana Menon[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. this actress does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO . Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and lacks coverage to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple prominent roles including a second and third billing. Can you explain why you added the UPE tag? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by an editor who claimed this image Menon.jpg as their own work on the commons, and I can not find the image online (which would imply copyright infringement). This implies a close connection between the uploader and the subject. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of multiple sources needed to pass GNG, which is required of all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 8 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. Sandstein 19:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu P. Pașca[edit]

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

A young assistant professor with a fairly low h-count. Maybe in a few years, but for now, there's no real indication of WP:PROF notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PROF with highly cited works as shown by google scholar here. The article also seems well sourced. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Highly cited" is vague; h-index of 14 is specific. And we don't typically keep articles on academics with such low h-index scores.
- As for the sourcing in the article, 11 of 18 sources are the subject's own papers or citations thereof; a further 5 are his homepage or pages from organizations that gave him awards/grants; 1 is a dead link; and just 1 is an (entirely softball) interview. Independent sources are not exactly in abundance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on cited works found here [9], subject should merit a page in Wikipedia based on WP:PROF. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that despite his low h-index and assistant professor rank, he meets WP:BIO as evidenced by these reliable sources: [10] [11] [12] Everymorning talk to me 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant standard is WP:PROF, He has neither the rank to let us assume likely notability, not the citations to show hs is an infleunce on the field. The sort of publicity he gets as an attractive young person is PR and puffery, not responsible reporting int the field. The way I see it, the very attempt to insert articles ljike this has the purpose of promotion, and however important . it may be to promote scientific careers for you people, that is not the role of WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 10 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. So Why 18:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kholvad House[edit]

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

Try also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and add "South Africa" to limit the results. --Doncram (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~A single mention in a book is not enough for WP:GNG. 2Joules (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be just one source included in the article, but did you try searching at all? wp:BEFORE appears not to have been met. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a former madrassa, in flat 13 that was the notability rationale. I don't think there is enough there to justify an article. scope_creep (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like it is a historic landmark, even suggested as a point of interest to visit, if it is not yet a museum, and there is info about it available, per this source. I don't know much about any historic register for South Africa, but if one existed this would arguably be on it. There are other hits too. There is a documentary titled "Flat 13" about it here. Perhaps it should be moved to "Flat 13, Kolvad House" or otherwise renamed, but that is for editing/discussion at Talk, not AFD. Obviously one combo article can cover "Flat 13" and the rest of the building. Flat 13 is currently a redlink. Seems like an important historic site for a country that (i think) doesn't have much coverage of its historic sites in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Doncram. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the hits is the Facebook page for Kholvad House South Africa. Just because there is little information in English does not mean that the article should be deleted. It might have more information in other languages that we are not seeing in English search. https://www.facebook.com/kholvadhousesa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per just the English coverage found by Doncram. As a South African entry there would probably be reasonable coverage elsewhere. I'm concerned that 2Joules seemed to either miss out a BEFORE check, or do a minimal one. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage identified by Doncram, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Likely notable, but would need rewrite from scratch, as the confusing and essay-like content is worse than no article. Sandstein 19:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending improvement. While potentially notable it's an unencyclopedic mess that doesn't belong in the mainspace in its current condition. Alternatively delete per TNT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I just made some changes to improve the article and demonstrate notability. There's additional unused background in the source I added, and there are other sources that can provide additional info. [[13]], [[14]], [[15]][[16]] are a few. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 11 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. There being no reliable sources cited weighs heavily against a merger. Sandstein 19:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty Sloboda[edit]

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

Non-notable local landmark. Maybe of interest to the residents of Taganrog, but not sufficiently covered in any independent media to be of use to Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The monument of Vasiliy Nechitailo about another landmark in Taganrog where I suggest a list-article about landmarks/monuments/memorials in Taganrog or Rostov Oblast as an alternative to deletion, and ask for productive discussion instead of more separate AFDs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley of Immortality (Taganrog). --Doncram (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, tentatively, to such a list of landmarks/monuments/memorials, either as a separate list or as a section in Taganrog perhaps. Discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The monument of Vasiliy Nechitailo. --Doncram (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did create List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog, but merging there doesn't seem right. However, it seems to me that merging to Taganrog instead, probably specificly to Taganrog#History of Taganrog is appropriate. Taganrog is very historically important as the would-be seaport for Russia, which failed due to loss of a battle, and hence St. Petersburg got built later. This stuff about its waterfront / seaport stuff seems very central to its history, certainly could be included in the Taganrog article. It is not enough, doesn't need to be split out separately though. --Doncram (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish this wasn't my vote, but this appears to be a machine-translated version of a Russian wikipedia article, and no independent sources are available. I would suggest a merge with Old Turkish bay if there were even one decent source. SportingFlyer talk 17:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetrixx[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. I find the strength of the source cited to close the last AFD as a keep to be too weak to constitute significant coverage. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 3 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 19:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Your Grave[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG the 2 sources are way too short. One doesn't even mention this album and both are user generated content. Nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated the other 2 albums of this group for deletion but as they were not created at the same time or by the same user I did not bundle but they are all 3 in the same vein.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riders of the Plague
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy Unbound

Dom from Paris (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would redirect, but I think the band's notability is also suspect. Deb (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect with history - Keep, or redirect with history as valid search term. The term should not be deleted until the band page goes through AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for a keep? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The band may be nn itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Domdeparis:, I am indifferent between Keep and "Redirect with history", so long as the history remains in tact with this valid search term. If the band is non notable, then it too should be nominated for AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that but normally a keep !vote even if it is tagged onto a redirect !vote should be motivated by guidelines or policy or may be ignored and as per WP:DISCUSSAFD please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:20, 10 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 ^^^ 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Ball (Overwatch)[edit]

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

This video game character does not need its own standalone page, as all the info that the character needs is in Characters of Overwatch. This character was just released and does not play a key role in Overwatch. The article is written for a wikia page. Not all characters need their own article! Computer40 «»(talk) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nom hasn't followed any part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives or advanced an argument for deletion. If you feel the page should be merged, you should engage the existing talk page discussion on the topic.

As to standalone notability, the article is treated as a summary style split from the list section and written for a general audience as the subject of multiple dedicated think pieces from reliable, secondary sources. This is easily ascertained from a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 09:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I will agree the article was created a bit too soon - the character's not yet out for all to play so we should judge on that point, though validly there are sources out there now about the character. It clearly passes a minimum bar for GNG sourcing, so there's no reason to delete, but I would definitely review the article a month or so after the character's been out for a while (eg in about 2 months). However, even in that case, this is clear case for merging, not deletion, should the standalone seem inappropriate. --Masem (t) 13:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Characters of Overwatch. Per my original argument on the talk page, we are just creating these hero articles with sources that pretty much boil down to announcements and initial reactions of it, with crufty lore and gameplay details being used to bloat up the article's size. Yes, the sources are valid, but that doesn't mean we should be creating articles about them within five minutes of the hero being announced. I'd also suggest Brigitte (Overwatch) to be merged for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems like it was created a bit early, but it has more than enough sources to meet the notability guideline. JOE BRO 64 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly on procedural grounds, generally agree with Czar. There doesn't seem to be a direct deletion rationale stated by the nom. AFD isn't really for proposing mergers. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the lot, but trim them all. These are written exactly like topical-Wikia pages, overflowing with fancrufty, trivial detail. We get this in comics a lot, too, though admittedly there are often many more storylines to cover. Bilbo Baggins is more like what a fictional character article should look like here (except the genealogy chart, which is unusual, but probably appropriate given how much genealogies matter in the work in question). For a fictional character who is the subject of a large book series, Harry Potter (character) seems about right. But some of these one-video-game character "bios" are starting to get toward Harry Potter detail level, and it's really inappropriate here. We've dealt with this many times before, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon, etc. Let fans move the trivia to Wikia or some other site; merge minor characters; keep main character articles lean. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled as to how this character, which has existed for a week, should have sourcing on par with that of your two examples, or how you think this has ungeneralized, "fancrufty, trivial detail" on par with any of your other named examples. Perhaps you can explain on the talk page. czar 10:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing that it's impossible for something that has existed for so little time to have a lot of sources, then maybe it's too soon for that article. Computer40 «»(talk) 21:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that was not Czar's point. He is saying that the comparing this character to figures like Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins is not great, and implying that the baseline of notability for fictional characters starts with those two characters is not correct. As argued by the other voters, this character has received enough significant coverage to assert notability. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't about what you personally think it doesn't "need", there has to be a demonstrable lack of standalone notability, and per the above users, this article does seem to be a notable character. There is plenty of room on Wikipedia for actually notable fictional characters, this doesn't seem like pure fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, agreed that perhaps made a bit early, but meets notability.QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:19, 8 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz George[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real basis of asserting notability for this columnist. Back in 2005, we did not a any real afgree on notability standards leading to anomalous keeps like the first AfD. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 10 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 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Hari Singh Nindar[edit]

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

Subject was a professor of radio and electronics at Mayo College, India. No sources provided. A WP:BEFORE found no sources on internet EN. Fails WP:PROF and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant (any) source coverage to pass WP:BIO Act345 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced biography that doesn't even make a claim of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 10 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 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unit DX[edit]

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

~~Non notable building. It might even qualify for CSD as there is no claim for notability. 2Joules (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed press release ref. Less well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less well referenced with out the press release; other coverage is a start but very local and this is just a commercial building that rents out space attempting to market itself on Wikipedia. We've deleted far better sourced pages. WP:TOOSOON.Moresie (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There oughta be a proper List of business incubators (was a redlink, which I am just now redirecting to Business incubator#List of business incubators). The current list there is very short and provides no context, no details about the few mentioned there, while there are in fact many members (hundreds? split into country subcategories) of Category:Business incubators. If there were a proper list, then this one might possibly be included into it and this article redirected/merged there, assuming this does not meet GNG for standalone notability. But it is unclear what standards for list-item inclusion/notability should be. I hesitate to add anything about this one to the current list. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON - at the moment its a building which the University wants to be an incubator Lyndaship (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hate to say it, because it is my kind of place, but it looks like it might be of local interest only. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The coverage by Chemistry World suggests that it is of national interest within the United Kingdom. Not TOOSOON: "The centre is currently home to 23 scientific and engineering companies and hosts more than 70 workers." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a link to where those figures appear? The reference in the article to Chemistry world doesn't give any employment figures Lyndaship (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The place is definitely up and running, there are a bunch of tenants. I just haven't been able to find secondary sources other than Chemistry World.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage seems pretty insignificant mostly from local sources (even considering the Chemistry World source). It's essentially lab space, so I don't think anyone can reasonably argue a keep here for something like that unless it becomes notable for work being done there (i.e., TOOSOON arguments above). Simply being covered by sources or having references does not satisfy WP:GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:45, 10 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. Disregarding the earlier confused yelling, nobody has rebutted the later NPOL argument. Sandstein 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Jax[edit]

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

The article is supported almost exclusively by primary sources, press releases, and other websites published by Jax's employers and other affiliated groups. There are very few reliable independent secondary sources that even mention Jax, and those that do are exclusively about a 2012 run for elected office as a member of the Palm Beach County school board. I couldn't even find a source indicating whether she won. The independent source with the most content about this individual can be found here; it's about how, during the school board election, it came to light that Jax had helped her husband publish a salacious website with images of scantily clad women. She falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CONFLICT OF INTEREST FROM THIS EDITOR

DrFleishchman just wants to get rid of anything I've touched now bc I'm new to wiki and made the egregious faux pas of not disclosing a relationship to the subject I was editing. Now he's attempting to rollback any pages I touched because I'm apparently unreliable. I've disclosed myself officially now. The reversions DrFleischman made on this page removed the legitimate sources added months ago. The Minneapolis Star Tribute and Education Week were never affiliates of Jax nor would most people call them unreliable sources. Content from the first goes back 18 years.

RE: "The article is supported almost exclusively by primary sources, press releases, and other websites published by Jax's employers and other affiliated groups. There are very few reliable independent secondary sources that even mention Jax, and those that do are exclusively about a 2012 run for elected office as a member of the Palm Beach County school board. I couldn't even find a source indicating whether she won." She didn't win. DrFleischman removed that content and source citation to the election board. What about the Star Tribute reports about the NAACP lawsuit and the school data website? What about the grant from the Bush Foundation? Also, press releases are not inherently unreliable sources. Welcome to the new world of digital communication.

RE: "the independent source with the most content about this individual can be found here; it's about how, during the school board election, it came to light that Jax had helped her husband publish a salacious website with images of scantily clad women. She falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN." Thank you for citing the salacious story for the Palm Beach Post as your "independent source with the most content". Comment "She falls well short of a politician" is blatantly editorial and an opinion, ironically.

Her page is visited 1x per day on average. That seems like an unlikely candidate for deletion.

I request DrFleischman recuse himself from an additional involvement with my edits as everything I touch seems to be considered tainted before any attempt is made to work through improvements with me or other party editors. --aedixon (talk 22:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative delete~~ The nomination statement is not quite accurate, The St Mary's University Magazine article is a secondary source, not connected with the school-board election, that goes into some depth of coverage of Jax. Also, the nominator does not mention having done a WP:BEFORE search. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jax's tenure as Education Commissioner yielded additional sources that might establish her notability. But in my view the currently cited sources do not do so. (It may be that the the nominator thinks of the St Mary's University Magazine article as affiliated and therefore Primary. I think such a view is mistaken.) For the matter of that, heer previous academic carrer is very little mentioned in the article. Are there no sources with which to expand it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aedixon whatever the motives of DrFleischman may have been in making this nomination, the article is currently not really up to standards, and a completely uninvolved editor might hav made much the same nomination in good faith. Therefore please assume good faith if possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh and please understand, Aedixon that WP:POLITICIAN is a notability guideline page here, explaining when people will be considered notable for their political activity. The relevant text from it says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". this is actually one of the more objective of our notability guidelines. Jax pretty clearly does not meet it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DES, I'm a bit baffled by a couple of your comments here. First, I did conduct a WP:BEFORE search. It's odd for you to suggest that I might not have when I discussed in my nomination the sources that I managed to find and didn't manage to find. Second, the St. Mary's source is undoubtedly a secondary source, no disputing that; but it's also not an independent source since St. Mary's was Jax's employer. I think you're confusing the concepts of primary sources and non-indepeondent sources. Just because a source is non-independent doesn't mean it's a primary source. But for the notability purposes we consider only sources that are both secondary and independent. This is for good reason as St. Mary's had a financial interest in promoting its faculty, so the fact that St. Mary's did a piece on her reflects more on the univerisity's promotional capabilities than it does no Jax's off-campus notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman You discussed the sources that supported the article, but your only mention of searching was I couldn't even find a source indicating whether she won. I didn't say that you didn't perform a BEFORE search, I said that you didn't explicitly state what sort of search you did. On the St Mary's page, for academics in particular, since academic institutions have significant reputational investments in accuracy, official faculty directories are usually considered to be fully reliable and treated as independent. However, the St. Mary's University Magazine is, according to its masthead, written and edited by various alumni who are not University employees, as is common for university magazines. I would consider it a fully independent source, valid to help establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to disagree on that one. In my view, regardless of whether a magazine is written by staff or alumni, it's still affiliated with subject and therefore not independent. Alumni want to promote their alma mater, and they're going to pick stories associated with their alma mater and not stories of broader public interest. Reliability has nothing to do with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OF COURSE IT'S NOT UP TO STANDARDS! ALL OF THE UPDATED WERE REVERTED BACK TO THIS VERSION! THERE ARE NOW NO UNINVOLVED EDITORS EVEN POSSIBLE HERE? I CAN'T GO ASK SOMEBODY TO DO IT, THEN TEHY'RE RELATED. I. DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND. WHAT. YOU. WANT. Fleishman did not assume good faith from me. He cited template copy that alleged me a black hat SEO and I consider that disparagement of my character. aedixon 00:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedixon (talk • contribs)

Please don't use all-caps, Aedixon, it comes across as yelling, and that does not help such discussions. I will examine the previous version and possibly reinstate soem or all of the edits. That someone edits an article to improve it without a COI does not make that editor "involved" so that comments here are discounted. Do understand that a "paid editor" here is not the same as "a black hat SEO". If an employee of a university edits an article about one of the university faculty as part of his job, he is a paid editor and must disclose that in accord with our policy on paid editing, which I advise you to read. As long as the disclosure is made and the policy followed, there should be no problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reinserted much of the content that was deleted in this edit having checked all cites that were in the edit. The article is at least much closer to passing the WP:GNG now, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. aedixon (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, Press Releases are not always unreliable, but they are generally not independent; therefore they can be used to support specific facts, but usually do not contribute to establishing notability. Note also that the number of views that an article has is strictly irrelevant to whether it should be deleted or kept. Many rarely viewed topics are thoroughly proper parts of the encyclopedia, while a celebrity gossip page might get hundreds or thousands of views a day, and still be quite inappropriate here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. TY. aedixon (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; do not see how this BLP meets notability. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cabinet-level head of an executive department of a state. Clearly notable. Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have revised my view. WP:NPOL says that Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are notable. I checked the archives and it is clear that this is not limited to elected positions. Jax held the state-level position of Education Commissioner, a cabinet-level office at the state level. She therefore passes WP:NPOL regardless of the later Palm Beach election that she lost. The additional sources about her political and academic career, which are at least close to meeting the GNG on their own in my view, merely confirm her notability. I have struck my bolded view above. We should probably add content about her books and her earlier career as an educator, if good sources can be identified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neets NPOL per DESiegel above. Education Commissioner is a state-level gig. Not entirely primary sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:50, 6 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 National Premier Soccer League. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zanesville Athletic FC[edit]

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

Originally PRODed, with argument being "team that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, also fails WP:FOOTYN". PROD removed without explanation. I know that the notability of these kinds of teams is sort of a grey area, but the team never appeared in the Open Cup and has no coverage to demonstrate that it is notable. Jay eyem (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Premier Soccer League as possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPSL teams are notable as they are eligible to participate in the USOC. That the club chose not to is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They aren't eligible to participate because they no longer exist. Thus under WP:FOOTYN they need to be shown to meet broader notability criteria. One of the reasons that articles like this are usually maintained is precisely the fact they still have the opportunity to participate in the Open Cup. The fact that a semi-pro team existed, never made the Open Cup, and then ceased to be means that it needs to meet those other notability standards, which hasn't been demonstrated. I actually agree with GiantSnowman, I think a redirect would also be proper. Jay eyem (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. If they were eligible to participate, they were notable, and if they were notable then, then they're still notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except they were not notable then, and that isn't what WP:FOOTYN or WP:NTEMP say. There is no assumption under FOOTYN of notability for semi-pro teams that never made the domestic cup and then ceased operations (in fact examples to the contrary include this and this). WP:NTEMP still requires that the article is "the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline", which thus far has not been demonstrated. You could just as easily apply GNG or SUSTAINED to demonstrate its lack of notability. Plus NTEMP literally discusses provisions for re-evaluating notability. Jay eyem (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except those were PRODs so there was no consnesus, and the Vancouver Tigers article isn't even about a USOC-eligible team. The Kokomo article shouldn't have been deleted IMO since they're in the PDL, but I'll hold off on requesting undeletion until this AfD runs its course. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per GS. A plausible search term but no indication of GNG. Does not satisfy WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 3 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. Enigma^msg 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siamak Yassemi[edit]

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

Notability is not established. I could not find any coverage by independent sources. The only provided source in the article is a list of more than 50 scientists who have been elected for a fellowship, most of whom do not have wikipedia entries (precisely due to lack of notability). The article was previously deleted (see here), but it has been created again from scratch, instead of going through the undeletion procedure. The Persian version of the article was also deleted from Persian wikipedia following discussions that concluded lack of notability. See here. Most of the content seems to be promotional and translated/copied from his own university webpage. Goharshady (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although references/citations are sparse on the page itself, the subject in my opinion meets WP:ACADEMIC based on the variety of published articles and their number of citations on Google scholar. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems to me that the number of citations is not above average for someone working in Maths/Theoretical CS, especially given that it starts from 1997. I think it does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. In case of citations, WP:ACADEMIC suggests looking into the Web of Knowledge free index of highly cited researchers. The person in question is not listed there.Goharshady (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pure mathematics (the field Yassemi works in) has very different citation patterns than theoretical computer science, and typically much lower citation counts. It is not appropriate to treat them as equivalent for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Weak mostly because the language barrier makes it difficult to be sure. I'm not impressed by TWAS, and I'm not entirely sure what level of honor it is to be an invited scholar of the Academy of Sciences of Iran (full membership would be a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3). But his citation record is good for pure mathematics ([17] WP:PROF#C1) and he seems to have a reasonably high international profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following JE's comment above. multiple papers with citation between 50 and 100 is quite respectable in pure mathematics. That's the basic standard at WP:PROF, amd is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF(1). h-index of 21 per google-scholar.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 10 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. WP:G4 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo (2018 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/(Cargo) (2017 film)

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

An as-yet unreleased film, written and directed by nobody famous, starring nobody famous, with no detectable impact. Calton | Talk 01:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film is notable and has reliable sources, Ain't It Cool News, Rue Morgue, Mojo music magazine and features a soundtrack by the front man of the band Tangerine Dream which are well know for their soundtracks. I am the author of this article. Subject of article is notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"notable". You'll have to do better than "because I said so". And no, a little pre-release publicity on specialist websites does not notability establish. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careful there. WP:WIKIHOUNDING. As I said, the film has coverage from multiple, legitimate, notable sources such as Ain't It Cool News, Rue Morgue (magazine), Mojo (magazine). That's more than enough. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with crap "Wikihounding" deflection. And someone added the previous AFD, which I somehow completely forgot about: you pulled this same stunt before, and it didn't end well then. Hell, you're even making the same empty claims and citing the same sources. --Calton | Talk 13:12, 5 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 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchal (actress)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP fails WP:NACTOR and also significant coverage to meet WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:23, 3 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.

[1] "House races offer Democrats best shot at claiming a chamber in Congress". ABC News.

[2] "Democrats face key test of Trump-era suburban strategy". Politico.

[3] Steiner, Christopher. "Gray Is The New Green". www.forbes.com.

[4] Van, Jon. "Cash infusion heats up prospects for recycled-energy business". www.chicagotribune.com/.

[5] Lydersen, Kari. "Q&A: Why combined heat and power is a 'no-brainer'". energynews.us.

[6] Kanellos, Michael. "Will Waste Heat Be Bigger Than Solar?". www.greentechmedia.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]