Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 June	15 June >

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P Dhani Dedwa[edit]

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

Hard to tell what exactly it is about; a street (there is a P. Dhani Road in Dedva, Rajasthan, India) or a neighbourhood. The only possible source I could find is facebook page. No significanr coverage in independent, reliable sources and no need to expand on anything that cannot be mentioned in the Dedwa article. Vexations (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article Dedwa says "Village has one bus stand. P. Dhani Dedwa bus stand.", no source is given, but Google Maps has a bus stop there. Not notable per [[WP:GEOLAND]] or [[WP:GEOFEAT]] and not worth a redirect. Sam Sailor 00:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No sources except for a few unreliable websites listing it as a government service and a fb page on it — F R ⁺ 06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references provided, grossly insufficient notability and does not assert a credible claim of significance. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hendricks[edit]

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

Not surprisingly, this is a clear WP:GNG fail. That's why we have WP:NPROF, but I'm not seeing that here either. Author claimed on talk that he met NPROF by being a fellow of the APA, which to me is clearly nonsense. Claims also that he met the requirements for significant work by being a co-author (among many) of three "widely cited"^{[citation needed]} works, which is at least debatable. So please convince me I'm wrong and I'll gladly withdraw this. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The American Psychological Association called Hendricks "An internationally recognized expert in theoretical, evaluative and treatment concerns for transgender and other gender nonconforming individuals, " when it gave him one its highest honors.[1]. Hendricks has been interviewed by WJLA [2]. He has been frequently interviewed for other news stories and has been recognized as one of the foremost scholars in his sub-discipline.--TM 01:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, being a Fellow of the American Psychological Association is a mark of special distinction and passes WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was canvassed on my talk page by Thsmi002 but I would have found this through watchlisting academic deletions in any case. In his talk page message, Thsmi002 asked me whether Fellow of the APA is enough for WP:PROF#C3. I'm a little skeptical, because it's not the highest distinction of the APA; that would be a different level, "distinguished fellow", and the APA's description page states that "excellence, not mere competence, is the hallmark of an APA Distinguished Fellow". That suggests to me that the lower fellow level rewards "mere competence" and is therefore not enough. The reason I think this should be a keep anyway is WP:PROF#C1. His papers (found by searching Google Scholar for author:Michael-L-Hendricks) have citation counts 365, 185, 116, ... with an h-index of 12. To me that's clearly above the threshold of notability (if still somewhat close to it). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, but there are at least two major organizations that refer to themselves as the APA. I know that the American Psychiatric Association has Distinguished Fellows, but I can’t find such a distinction for the APA that is relevant here, which would be the American Psychological Association. I do note that the American Psychological Association lists >4200 people in its fellows database. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I was just following the link that Thsmi002 gave me for the fellowship but I didn't check whether it was for the correct org. (See also: the two different AAAS organizations, whose fellows are fortunately both notable.) —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The APA which matters here says, "Fellow status is an honor bestowed upon APA members who have shown evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions or performance in the field of psychology. Fellow status requires that a person's work has had a national impact on the field of psychology beyond a local, state or regional level." They don't appear to have a higher tier of fellowship. They do appear to have a sizable number of Fellows, but they also have over 115,000 members. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a bit on the weak side, but - combined (based on reception & fellowship) - indicators of notability are there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3. I wrote the page after seeing that Hendricks is a Fellow of the APA and reviewing his citation counts. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chassell Township School[edit]

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

A small, rural school with 260 students across 13 grades. Fails WP:GNG. (Note that "small" and "rural" are meant as descriptors and not reasons for deletion. That it fails WP:GNG is the reasoning. My apologies for the confusion. TM 23:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All schools with senior high school grades are notable, as established at frequent outcomes. "Small" and "rural" do not take away from the presumed notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow keep - 1) this nomination was made in bad faith as part of a POINTy retaliation for reverting a good faith edit lacking appropriate sources by the nominator. Two prods, the reverting of a prod I placed and this, both prods being to articles well over a year old. 2) No valid rationale for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails WP:GNG is a valid rationale for deletion. Please demonstrate how it passes GNG and assume good faith.--TM 00:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Per WP:SCHOOLRFC notability is no longer assumed for secondary schools, and other than the US News item I'm not seeing any general notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reconsideration I would agree to merge per below. There should be mention of the school in the township article. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Chassell Township~~ and create an education section there as the only school in town. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC) updated 20:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge - to Chassell School Complex, the existing NRHP article on the place. John from Idegon (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is no longer a school, and this article is about the school. It might be better served in the township article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (hopefully, 3rd time's the charm). Several secondary sources have been added (thanks, Meters), and now, at least IMO, this is a remarkably strong article for such a small off the beaten path school. Pinging AngusWOOF and Mangoe to see if these changes modify your feelings at all. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs work, like determining when the school was first established, and more information about the development and opening of the Highway location. If you want to keep it separate from the other Township or Chassell articles, you'll need to update those two articles with Education sections and a {{Main}} to the school. U.S. News reports and Department of Education listings aren't significant coverage of the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still working on this so I won't add my !vote until I'm done. I've already added a considerable amount of new material and sources, so I hope everyone will take a second look when I'm done. Meters (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two independent sources, neither of which cover the subject in detail. Government websites and reports are not sufficient for establishing notability. Even local coverage seems minimal.

Keep I'm done, at least for now. I think there is sufficient meat here now to show notability. It has more than 100 years of history behind it, but since it is now a very small rural school it's difficult to find many media sources. Still, there's a network affiliate mention of the introduction of trades programs, and a mention of the school's surprising run to the state basketball finals this year, playing against teams from schools as much as two and one-half times as large. I'm amazed that a high school with only approximately 80 students that graduates less than a dozen students some years can even host a team, let alone make it to the state championship finals. I strongly encourage anyone who had previously looked at this article to revisit it. Meters (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong rejection of the idea that rural makes something less notable.Egaoblai (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the above reasons. It is blatantly obvious that secondary schools are considered to be notable by most editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not blatantly obvious for all secondary schools as that includes middle schools / junior highs which are usually merged to district. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British. I use "secondary schools" in the British (and greater world) sense. That is, a school that educates to at least 16. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use the term "terminal school" to describe this situation. John from Idegon (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the District which houses Chassell Township School will also redirect to this. The district just contains this one school. [3] [4] This can also be added to the History when it was established as a school district as opposed to just an independent school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a small school but the article now demonstrates that it receives the coverage typical of U.S. public high schools, and thus (as numerous AfDs have continued to confirm) passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ehinger[edit]

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

regional cable news channel reporter. He has only won regional Emmy awards, which are not usually considered notable. The sources do not provide any in-depth coverage as required by WP:BASIC Rusf10 (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable news reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for journalists, and the regional Emmys are not enough to meet the requirement for WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The_Radical_Party_(UK)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. As per deletion of Patriotic Socialist Party a recently created political party is not automatically notable, and must surely wait for more than a single by-election to have notability proven. Article is tagged for single source violations and has few, if any, secondary source citations, against Wikipedia policy. doktorb _words^deeds 21:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article; the party has been around since 2015. It was active in contesting a seat in 2017 as well as the recent Lewisham by-election. It will likely contest more elections. The article was only created 14 June yet a deletion process had already been initiated on its day of creation. Wikipedia policy states that "articles should not be nominated...if the content is still being built or improved". The page is relevant and if deleted could cause other relevant minor political parties to lose representation on this public encyclopaedia due to the precedent set; the party are notable enough but I agree more sources and information is needed (though as stated previously the page is only one day old as of writing this comment). Greenleader 07:22, 15 June (UTC)

- Additionally, the "patriotic socialist party" mentioned had good reasons to be deleted; it didn't seem to contest elections, doesn't have a website or social media with hundreds of followers, hasn't been mentioned in articles and is not a relevent minor party. The radicals however do seem to have relevence as well as social media with 100s of followers and have contested elections and been mentioned in articles; they will likely pop up more and I believe it would be wrong to remove their wikipedia page - as of writing many more sources have been added. Greenleader 10:49 (UTC)

- - We do not decide notability based on social media followers. I've got hundreds of followers on Twitter, but that doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article. Sources have been added: they are all either primary sources or passing references within routine election coverage. There is not a single secondary source that gets anywhere remotely near WP:SIGCOV. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article; as stated by Greenleader, the party was founded in 2015 and stood a candidate in 2017, and a candidate in a 2018 by-election. I am currently working to find more inofrmation and references relating to the party that are not from the Party itself. Cdjp1 11:15, 15 June (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The party leader has stood in two elections, getting less than 1% of the vote on either occasion. The only reliable, secondary sources is election coverage listing his candidacies. There is no precedent that a party is notable just because it has stood a few times. Wikipedia is not here to give free advertising to vanity projects. Without secondary sources about the party or its leader, this fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New political party that has had no election victories, no notable members, and no WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage or sources other than from the party itself. If really necessary, we can add a short note description in the relevant by-elections' candidates box outlining the party. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the threshold for notability of political parties is barely above existence, but I don't feel even that threshold is met. I cannot tell whether this is anything more than a corporate name for Patrick Gray, who doesn't appear to be notable either. All of the independent references are trivial and/or statistical. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Kandathil[edit]

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

I'm not finding enough independent reliable sources to back up any of the article's claims of notability. By the looks of it, he doesn't pass any of the WP:NPROF criteria, and without any sources, he can't get a WP:GNG pass either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any useful refs to establish notability (even the sole URL is a dead link). Basie (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't find much of anything that would establish notability. Looks like the subject doesn't pass WP:NPROF or WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keizaburō Saeki[edit]

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

Rationale borrowed from ~~J04n~~ Cckerberos (courtesy ping) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai, which was an identical bot-created article:

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

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name, and of the Japanese name. The results for the English names were pitiful, and the results for the Japanese were hardly better: trivial mentions in credit sections of books, or lists of copyright holders of things. Japanese Wikipedia has no article about this person, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it.

In the absence of reliable source, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current cite alone is insufficient, but I also remember having saved one of these in the past. It looks like there's quite a bit of coverage of the 1958 documentary アンデスを越えて–南米の日本人たち (=approx. Over the Andes: The Japanese of South America), which is listed as a Paramount Pictures/Mainichi Pictures release. There is another film released by Shōei from the same year. It's not clear to me at a glance whether this is the same Saeki, but see e.g. this. Dekimasuよ! 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, note that the previous nomination referred to here was actually by User:Cckerberos, who hasn't edited since December. Dekimasuよ! 00:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I've amended. Thanks for spotting that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of reliable sources, there really isn't any way this passes WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything other than the 328 photographers list that conveys notability. Without evidence of being renowned, all the article says is that the subject is a photographer, which isn't enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LotLinx[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NPRODUCT. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources that aren't first-party or press releases are 8-sentence articles. Awards are a subsector award that have not yet gotten a Wikipedia page and likely won't. Sufficient signs of notability not given. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the overt press releases, the little coverage that isn't that looks suspiciously like Phil Space got a press release on a slow afternoon and constructed an article around it. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 13 references to the company's own website, 2 to prnewwire, articles that start with "LotLinx today announced", a non-notable award and a whole bunch of rewritten press releases from the automotive press. I don't see any truly independent in-depth reporting. Vexations (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the large references section replaying the company's press release history, these do not meet the requirements at WP:NCORP. Nor do Automotive Website Awards indicate inherent notability for the company's product range. I see nothing to indicate more than a company going about its business: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sivanand[edit]

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

BLP tagged for notability for 3 years. Zero citations to reliable sources independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no significant coverage and no claims to notability per WP:BIO, the subject is only known for being the head of a company we don't have an article on. Virtually all potential sources appear to be press releases of some kind, the best one I can find is [5] and that's a very brief quotation in an article about something else. Hut 8.5 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, zero RS provided Accesscrawl (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable & no reliable reference could be found, Fails WP:GNG Heshiv (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wallengren[edit]

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

Wallengren is a local radio station host. This is not the level of position that gives default notability. The one source here in no way shows notability. My search for more sourcing turned up some passing mentions, but no substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 1 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 11:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources present that comes close to WP:RS. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. An article on this subject was deleted in September 2017. The article is certainly longer than the deleted version, but does nothing more to establish notability as coverage is pretty week (an FEC filing and State Bar of California web page as two of the six sources, two of the other six focusing on Nancy Pelosi, and the other two simply talking about surveilance). This article appears to be written as a hit piece on Nancy Pelosi being too far to the right ("Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi helped kill the USA Rights Act,[4][5] the latest among several times when she impeded surveillance reform efforts") and with much WP:PUFFERY of the subject ("Strongly influenced by his identity as an immigrant and experience as a person of color, the various parts of Buttar’s career and creative work have been guided in common by a commitment to social justice") that to delete all the content suffering from those problems would leave almost nothing left. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this entry is clearly not written from a NPOV. I also tend to think Mr. Buttar is not sufficiently notable. Would agree with deletion, or at the very least some heavy editing to remove what is an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia to smear Ms. Pelosi. Mr.dooley (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for challenging incumbent representatives in election primaries — but nothing else here is an article-clinching notability claim, the sources aren't getting him over WP:GNG, and the article does indeed seem to be lapsing into anti-Pelosi advocacy that violates WP:NPOV. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alex Shih (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lom Harsh[edit]

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

Non-notable film director, has directed one full length non-notable film called Yeh Hai India. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Was previously deleted via AFD and there seems to be no substantial work done by him to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FITINDIA 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The article was recreated by the original creator of the deleted page, and appears to be nearly identical to the deleted version. Nanophosis (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Already AfDed twice, and no more notable now. Edwardx (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt including Lom Harsh (director) a possible case of UPE. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar Studios[edit]

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

Does not show notoriety, WP:NCORP. Unverifiable sources. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, ~~Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"notable award,s Fails PORNBIO"!? Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste rationale - Just forgot to eliminate that part. –Davey2010^Talk 19:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen America[edit]

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

Non-notable course created by an SPA with no coverage in any RS as far as I can see and no indication the works related have been cited in academic sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an online search for some detailed coverage about these courses had no results. Aside from the strong notability concerns, the article in its current form is entirely based on self-published sources and only serves to popularize the activities of David Lempert (the author who designed these courses as a student in 1985). Without sufficient independent sources, the excessively-detailed page is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX aswell. GermanJoe (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main champion of the article has many days notice before this was listed that there were problem at the article and possible COI issues; their only response was a bit of table pounding, no third party sources or collaborative dialogue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Rohr[edit]

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

The only source is an article in a Mensa publication by the subject, not about him. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the detailed nomination, the "keep" opinion simply makes no sense. Sandstein 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Romero[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Victor Romero

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

Article fails notability and verifiability. This will take longer to explain than most nominations I've participated in, but I'll give it a go.

References 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 22 are not reliable sources since they are either blogs or social network; among them references 3, 6, 11 and 22 are not independent either, and references 10, 16, 17 and 20 do not mention Romero. References 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are dead and haven't been archived; many of its fields haven't been provided either, such as author, article date and access date, so there is a good part of the information that cannot be verified. References 9, 12, 15, 21, 23 appear to be the only independent, reliable sources, but subject still fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE at first sight. The first source indicates that as of 2012, Jaimito has not been sold nationwide, being sold in only five states of Venezuela's twenty-three. The subject also fails WP:GOOGLETEST, I couldn't find more reliable sources about him

While he is shown as a participant of the World Economic Forum in Panama City in 2014, he is among 600 other participants, including 11 other more prominent Venezuelan personalities, including people from the Development Bank of Latin America, PepsiCo, Associated Press and Santa Teresa Rum. The article also mentions the "Blue Strike", known as Golpe Azul in Spanish, an important event in Venezuela that led to the arrest of prominent mayor and political prisoner Antonio Ledezma, along with more than eight other persons, whose article in Spanish I have worked in. However, I haven't found any mention of the subject regarding the topic, the only related source the I've found is La Tabla blog, already included as a source. The only Romero that can be found is Alfredo Romero, director of Venezuelan NGO Foro Penal; there's even no way to verify even if the persons arrested are promotion partners of Victor or global shapers as claimed in the article. As far as I know, this is not the case. Jamez42 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article needs to be edited to remove some references, but there is definitely merit in the subject's achievements. 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)— 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - agree with nom, no real notability and probable promotional intent. Deb (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Futchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This appears to be WP:CORPSPAM with no references, even non-RS ones, and an extensive number of external links in the body. A BEFORE search on Google News returns two dozen or so hits, but most seem to be false positives (e.g. surnames). Chetsford (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NPRODUCT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable & Looks like advertisement of Futchi, doesn't meet WP:NCORP Heshiv (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a fun game, but I cannot find a single non-trivial, independent, reliable source. Not notable; makes no claim of significance. Somno (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland). Sandstein 18:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westland Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was passed at AfD once before, but I believe the community's understanding of notability as it applies to schools has changed. The claim of notability in the previous AfD hinged on the fact that an alumni is (was) the president of Chile. Current understanding of notability as it applies to schools (and elsewhere) is that WP:INHERIT says that just because someone clearly notable was at one time associated with the organization, that does not transfer to the organization. There isn't enough independent sourcing in detail to support WP:GNG, and the assumption of same that we normally apply to secondary schools does not apply to lower schools. Of course, I would be fine with a redirect to the district or an appropriate list article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland). Looking at the previous AfD back in 2015, it does seem that the entire case for inclusion rested on the alumi subject matter discussed in the nomination. I was a bit on the fence with this, namely as some could argue with some reason that it could be said the school is more notable than others for that reason. In saying that, I accept the viewpoint and statement taken from WP:INHERIT which reasonably states that the organisation can't be considered sufficiently notable wholly on this alone. I don't think understanding on notability has changed at all since the last AfD, but I do think the votes provided last time to keep were weak and without any substance pertaining to the article itself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge some content. Few middle schools are notable, and WP:INHERIT applies to the coverage of this school. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - 3 years ago all high schools were deemed notable and closed as such, 3 years later things changed and that's no longer the case, I'm not seeing any sort of evidence of notability here so redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A middle school isn't a high school though, it would need more notability beyond existence. I'm okay with expanding the role of the middle school in the district article to a section or paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:WITHDRAW by the nom. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Phi Hùng[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG nothing found in a before search. the 1 bluelinked film in his filmography is unsourced as is its Vientnamese language page. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I posted a notice on WT:VIETNAM so editors can research Vietnamese-language sources. We need to make sure we have vetted non-English sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be many sources in Vietnamese, just giving a few here - [6][7][8][9][10], mentioning his career as a singer as well as an actor, and that he had appeared in a number of films and won a Golden Kite Best Actor Award in 2004 [11]. These should qualify him under WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Hzh (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hzhs analysis as well as per the tons of sources on Google News - Clearly BEFORE hadn't been done. –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above, so passes WP:BASIC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn following the additional sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As the page is fully protected I'm doing this for User:SPECIFICO. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the statement that this event occurred and that the referendum was defeated, this article consists entirely of OR, UNDUE, SYNTH association of unrelated events, and COATRACK snippets of opinion and fringe advocacy. The referendum, having been defeated last week, is now listed in Swiss referendums, 2018. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This particular referendum has attracted coverage well outside Switzerland, so there is no reason to kill the dedicated article. The rejection of the initiative at the ballot box does not change its notability, which was established at the prior AfD merely two months ago. — JFG ^talk 12:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What RS discussion of this referendum (beyond passing mentions) can you cite to establish notability? There is none in the current article after all attempts to salvage it? SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator Adèle Fisher is a blocked sockpuppet so I tagged it as a speedy G5. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, this is getting annoying. It was already G5ed once and AfDed twice. Look in the history. Less that a third of the content comes from the sock. If you hadn't protected the page, I would have reverted you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I tagged it and didn't straight up delete it. Some one else can check and see if it should be deleted or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D:

As a matter of fact, most of the content is from the sockpuppet. It's just that whenever any of several editors removed it, the bad content was edit-warred back into the article by a highly-motivated colleague. All the content and sourcing has been impeached at some length on the talk page. Also, this is only the second AfD. The listing of #2 above is an artifact of its having been protected. And editors in the previous AfD said this should be reviewed after the referendum, which has now failed and which failure, combined with the ongoing insistence on bad content poorly sourced, led to the current AfD. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not dealing with socks here. It has been already established that the subject of the 2018 Swiss referendum about sovereign money possessed independent notability. That was demonstrated by sources already in the article and sources provided during the last AfD process. I'm obliged by this silly nomination to again quote a sample of them. Look down below. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, you do realize that your G5-based nomination for a speedy deletion is actually baseless, do you? WP:G5 states, with emphasis added just so that you see your mistake, [Speedy deletion] applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of subject clearly possessing independent notability. And, before we hear the tired argument about "notability fading away", please note that notability is not temporary.

Sources in addition to those in the article that show independent notability of the sovereign-money 2018 referendum: The Daily Telegraph ("Switzerland to vote on banning banks from creating money"); Global Finance ("Swiss To Vote On Reclaiming Fiat Power"); Reuters ("Sovereign money scheme would hurt Swiss economy"); Handelsblatt ("Castrating the Banks"); The Economist ("Shake your money makers"); Bloomberg Businessweek ("Why Swiss Vollgeld Vote Has the Central Bank Nervous"); Forbes ("Swiss Monetary Reform Referendum Is, Sadly, Driven By Ill Informed Loons"); Le Temps ("Les partisans de l'initiative «Monnaie pleine» lancent la campagne"); Die Tageszeitung ("Vollgeld, voll geil?"); La Repubblica ("Svizzera, un referendum contro privatizzazione della moneta e finanzcapitalismo"). There's more. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why this needs to be deleted. Nobody disputes that the referendum occurred. But nothing indicates its WP:NOTABLE and our readers will find the vote count at the Swiss referendums article. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those sources, along with tons of others, do NOT, of course, just prove the referendum actually occurred (their text was written before the referendum anyway!

) but demonstrate how important it was, and the potential consequences an adoption of the proposal would bring. Quite solid stuff. But, we already know where you stand, by now, dear SPECIFICO. It would save us a lot of time if you just said "I hate this". -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided between a keep and a merge to Full-reserve banking, a lot of the material could be better handled there (including discussion of the NEED Act). There's definitely coverage of this when you search for "Vollgeld". power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searches in other languages, in addition to German, with Vollgeld, bring up, as expected, many hits. In Switzerland itself, there have been numerous television shows, which are unfortunately unavailable online (except for maybe a couple), instigated mainly by the financial community. Pre-referendum the polls were showing how this would end up but no one could be certain. What if the voters were suddenly to decide to upend everything?

-The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clear from a google search on "Vollgeld". — goethean 17:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is well-sourced and covers a topic that has been widely covered in the world press. It is notable, useful, and important. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said last time, yes, a loony idea by loons, etc, and it was accordingly rejected. But as noted above, the initiative and its result wasn't only covered in great detail in Swiss national media (see my comment in the last AfD for that), but also in international media. If that isn't notable, nothing on Wikipedia is notable. I really don't understand what the nominator is trying to accomplish here. If the article is deficient in terms of OR, etc (which is very possible given that this is about the economic equivalent of fringe science), then that can and should be remedied by editing. The German article is significantly better and not, as the nominator writes, just a collection of press snippets. Sandstein 17:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The article, despite all efforts to improve it, currently gives us RS-cited content only to state that the initiative existed and was defeated. As others have said, that content could have been merged with the general coverage of Swiss Refernda here. To respond to your question, then, despite the earlier AfD and several editors challenging all the OR, COATRACK and other bad content, the only upshot was that one editor kept adding the bad stuff back to such an extent that we now have page protection with all that stuff intact. Now, thanks to @Power-enwiki and Goethean: I see that there is at least some RS discussion of the referendum under a search for Vollgeld. That would never have come to light without this AfD. I'm no longer convinced that this should be deleted and I consider that a very positive outcome for this AfD, one that was manifestly impossible with the editing having degenerated into a senseless repetitive pushing of all the bad edits. I don't get your point about the German article. If you were referring to me I meant to say that the English WP article is a collation of POV snippets. I have not read the German article. Anyway, your visits here have been constructive. Thanks. I do hope you'll help clean up the bad stuff from the English article. Frankly, aside from degrading WP, it also presents the appearance that there has been no intelligible mainstream discussion of the Referendum. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article, despite all efforts to improve it, currently gives us RS-cited content only to state that the initiative existed and was defeated.

But isn't that only because you have ruled that any additional context is inappropriate due to one policy or another, and repeatedly removed material which gave context to the article? — goethean 20:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was just garbage. Advocacy from blogs presented as fact, misinformation trying to link Irving Fisher to the Swiss Referendum by an author so enthusiastically misinformed that he claimed Fisher had won a "Nobel Prize" decades before such a thing existed, and general undue material about banking that was opinion unrelated to this proposition by any expert analysis, notable comment or factual link. In the links with the german search word I see better stuff, so that's good. I can't imagine why the sock who started the article and the advocates who followed her didn't just get some good content in there rather than edit-warring the useless stuff. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You ruled yourself and by yourself alone that sourced text about support to the ideas behind the referendum was "garbage" and you deleted everything! You seem to have this weird understanding about primary sources which, if we were to follow, would forbid us from having quotes from the Bible in the article about Christianity!

Primary sources are not forbidden. They have their use. We do not of course use them to prove notability; we use them to present what the originators said - of an idea, an ideology, a proposal, etc. But why don't you just proclaim ""I hate that!" and save us all a lot of time? It would be a legitimate statement. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome: Whoever closes this AfD will note your stark departure from Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of issuing forth threats and warnings, try to understand the nuance here: Primary sources are not forbidden in toto. They have their use. Primary sources, e.g. the autobiography of an author, are not used to prove that what the authors said is notable or that it's true. But they are used, if needed, to present what the authors said, in their own words. For more, look up WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. That is all, and as stark as it gets. -The Gnome (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the question here is notability. SPECIFICO talk 08:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. But no cigar.

You kept complaining about the article using primary sources, and started deleting them. Your justification for the unwarranted deletions was that they were primary sources. But those sources were not used to justify notability! They were and still are used to present ideas first-hand, i.e. directly from the horse's mouth, from their originators and proponents - which is a totally valid way of presenting ideas in Wikipedia. (Critical assessment is, of course, also required. But we digress.) For notability, we are obliged to use third-party, independent, reliable sources. Which we did and still do. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are quite some reputable English language sources mentioning or discussing the Swiss “Vollgeld Initiative”, which can be found when you put that string into Google Scholar. Some are linked to partisan web sites, but then the content is often by reputable scholars. --Schullerius (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you present the references you've found that would be RS citations, not just passing mentions and not primary sourced opinion? I'm not seeing any. The passing mentions of the Referendum and its date considerably weaken your case and suggest a merge to Swiss referendums 2018. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable sources mentioning multiple sovereign monetary reform proposals and their historical connectedness, including the Swiss Vollgeld initiative (there might be some more in the German language):

Eckrich, Lucille L. T. 2017. “Monetary Transformation and Public Education”. In Hartlep, Nicholas & Eckrich, Lucille & Hensley, Brandon (Eds.), The Neoliberal Agenda and the Student Debt Crisis in US Higher Education. New York & London: Routledge. 233- 250.
Huber, Joseph. 2012. “Monetary and Banking Reform: Bringing back in the Monetary Fundamentals of Finance”. Journal of Economy & Society / Gazdaság & Társadalom (Hungary), 4/1-2: 38–53.
Huber, Joseph. 2014d. “Monetary reform as incremental innovation”. Sovereign Money: Website for New Currency Theory and Monetary Reform.
Kroll, Matthias. 2015. "The Monetary System In Crisis: Monetary reform proposals, and a simple suggestion for a more effective monetary policy". Future Finance – Discussion Paper No. 1, 07/2015. The World Future Council.
Lainà, Patrizio. 2015a. “Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf”. Economic Thought, Vol 4, No 2 (28 Sep 2015): 1-19.
Phillips, Ashton S. 2014. "Bank-Created Money, Monetary Sovereignty, and the Federal Deficit: Toward a New Paradigm in the Government-Spending Debate". Western New England Law Review, 36: 221-56.
Striner, Richard. 2015. How America Can Spend Its Way Back To Greatness. A Guide to Monetary Reform. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Svanbjörn, Thoroddsen & Sigurjónsson, Sigurvin B. 2016. “Money Issuance: Alternative Monetary Systems”. A report commissioned by the Icelandic Prime Minister’s Office. KPMG, Iceland.

--Schullerius (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's all well and good. We know there's a large body of thought concerning money and banking, regulation, related institutions, and the economic effects of each. That's all irrelevant to the question as to whether this particular initiative -- not the general subject or the motivations and enthusiasms of its promoters -- is covered as the subject of RS discussion, commentary, analysis. So far all we have from RS is that this referendum occurred and that it was defeated. That's really all we have seen. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sources establishing independent notability have been provided, both in the article, and on-demand afterwards during the AfD process (that does not seem it'll ever stop). A sample was again provided here above. Yet, these sources, though clearly settling the issue, are dismissed and ignored. As if pretending they do not exist will justify deletion. This is willful blindness to facts. -The Gnome (talk)

The statement by SPECIFICO that the eight sources mentioned above are merely a part of “a large body of thought concerning money and banking, regulation, related institutions, and the economic effects of each” and do not contain relevant “RS discussion, commentary, analysis” of “this particular initiative” is not a correct statement because all of the eight sources mention and/or discuss and/or analyze the Swiss sovereign money referendum within the specific context of their research concerns. I invite SPECIFICO to search within the provided sources the relevant data and then stick to his initial opening statements that these are “all well and good”. --Schullerius (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems a determination to get rid of Swiss referenda, for reasons that escape me. They always get decent coverage outside and no-doubt excellent coverage inside. These referenda are distinct events in their own right and don't need merging. My thanks to The Gnome for relisting the sources that demonstrate it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered at Swiss referendums, 2018. As Switzerland holds numerous referendums every year, there's no need for an article on each one. Number 5 7 21:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That they hold lots of them doesn't prohibit individual ones from being individually notable, given the level of sourcing that is available to support them. Beyond that, if they are suitable to remain, but might be better merged, then the correct thing is to go Keep here and discuss a merge elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Resubmitted See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018 (3rd nomination) due to an error on my part.

Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Aside fro the statement that this event occurred and that the referendum was defeated, this article consists entirely of OR, UNDUE, SYNTH association of unrelated events, and COATRACK snippets of opinion and fringe advocacy. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didi b (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only claim of notability is being a member of a band whose article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiff No Beat. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as WP:TOOSOON with a lack of coverage of him independently Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Per Nick Moyes's suggestion.. Sandstein 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hulihee[edit]

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

Not notable. Also see Sideburns. However, I would recommend against a redirect to sideburns, since the most proper use of this word in Hawaii is Huliheʻe Palace. A search thorough Hawaiian dictionaries brings up nothing. The word is, for Wikipedia purposes, only related to the Hawaiian palace. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, thank you — Maile ! I've been wondering about this for ages. Try google books or something. I can't due to my location. If there's nothing there, then there's probably nothing elsewhere, because I've checked elsewhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak my gut instinct was to delete this, but decided to get other opinions. I do a lot of work on Hawaii material, and I don't see this as notable. There's nothing about the image that indicates the whiskers as different than that of a lot of men over the centuries. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 8 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 11:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite accept the rationale of not redirecting an article because another article of similar name exists and will cause confusion, so therefore deletion is necessary to avoid a confusing redirect. I would observe that, whilst this page deserves the prize for the most laughable citation ever, the term 'Hulihee' is clearly in use to refer to a type of beard (here, here, here) So my !vote would be to Rename without a redirect to Hulihee (beard), then redirect that title to Sideburns. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick Moyes (including the move so Hulihe'e Palace is the primary topic), but I feel List of facial hairstyles is a better target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not seen List of facial hairstyles. I agree it is a better target to redirect to. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Baba[edit]

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

BLP article on a person of dubious notability with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the current sources are either unreliable or passing mention. The creator appears to have COI/UPE issues as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:21, 7 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 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Just a promotional CV, with likely COI. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and not noteworthy for stand alone article. Reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feature (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable broken up band, Fails WP:BAND Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:58, 7 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 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has multiple reliable sources coverage such as Quitus, Clash magazine, The Skinny and Allmusic so passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources seem a bit promotonal to me. 1 LP and a couple of EPs. I don't see how they satisfy WP:BAND. Polyamorph (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage and all sources are reliable music press, agree that it passes WP:NMUSIC/WP:BAND/WP:GNG. All are reviews, apart from perhaps one which is a premiere, so don't agree that they are promotional, it's just favourable coverage. Lewishhh (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient qualitative sources. Agree they are reliable and non-promotional, passes passes WP:NMUSIC. Yealdgate (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G4. Identical copy, missed the previous deletion. So Why 14:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elix Polymers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no evidence of notability. The refs are mainly recycled press releases that get picked up in trade pubs.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since SoWhy moved the article I now see it's both G4 & G5 eligible, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ELIX Polymers, User talk:Croa8man. Unfortunately Bilby didn't tag Croa8man with the puppetmaster's name when blocking - where do I file the SPI? Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racist (Counter) History of UC San Diego[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK, personal essay, WP:SYN from the title on down. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the project gains nothing by keeping this article. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure synthesis with nothing salvageable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GMG ^talk 19:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is one of several articles created or expanded as part of a UC San Diego class project. Several of these articles have the "college paper" feel, straying into more of a collection of cherry-picked examples to prove a point rather than a neutral encyclopedic article with a clearly defined scope. Other articles from this project have already been tagged for deletion, or moved to drafts/user pages for further development. Tagging instructors GarthBLMCourse, Samstrudel and ambassador Shalor (Wiki Ed) for visibility. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear POV fork. CataracticPlanets (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with those above, an obvious POV fork. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline WP:G10 attack page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above contributors. Deb (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Alternative (album). Sandstein 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spit It Out (IAMX song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from song}} to album article The Alternative (The Alternative (album)) for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. R from song redirects are one of many redirect types that uncontroversially should be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR rather than simply nominating for discussion. User:Lachlan Lachlan has been told so repeatedly on their user talk page (permalink). Sam Sailor 12:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tootsie Roll Industries. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child's Play (candy)[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006, apparent perma-stub and doesn't seem to meet GNG. The subject is just a licensed mix of other candies, this could easily be deleted and mentioned on the main Tootsie Roll Industries page. Nanophosis (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from product name}} to the parent company Tootsie Roll Industries. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. Sam Sailor 07:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Tootsie Roll Industries. This article on Child's play is only a brief article that does not supply much information. Vorbee (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Lecat[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sources are a complete mess. Mix of press releases, blog, and name mentions, and own blogs. scope_creep (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However the subject is notable but resources are not reliable. There must be a refimprove tag in-spite of a deletion tag.NANExcella (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are in passing, WP:SPIP or not independent of the subject's company. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per norm. Edidiong (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Jennings[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:NBIO. All references have been removed by user presumed to be article subject, who has edited the page extensively (and appears to be the original page creator under a different account), but even prior to this user's contributions there were only ever two sources in the article, both articles written by the subject. I'm not seeing enough coverage outside of his own work to warrant keeping this page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; just not notable for stand alone article; reads like a press release. A colonel in rank, but nothing of real notability while in the military. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently un-sourced BLP. Does seem to pass any PROF or SOLDIER criteria. BEFORE doesn't bring up much.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 18:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The team has only one opponent, Christmas Island. Neither of the team is notable and they are not independent countries of their own rights, not national teams here per se. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read through the old AfD and pretty much concur with those deletes, this fails WP:GNG. Unless you can combine with Christmas Islands into one article with enough citations for GNG, maybe a route. Just a thought know. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association. Nzd (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not an independent countries itself is not a valid reason as Catalonia national football team article existed (not independent and not a member of FIFA), also Macau national football team (not independent and but a member of FIFA). However, at the current state, seem there is lack of GNG coverage of Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team. Matthew_hk t c 16:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association. Not inherently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best outcome here. If we redirect or delete, it seems reasonable for someone to add the content (or equivalent content) to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association article, in which case a merger is more appropriate. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment.

Not recommend merge as subject fails WP:GNG for no independent, reliable sources are found to add the content toCocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association. redirect
Not recommend redirect as subject is NOT a national team for Cocos Islands is NOT an independent country.
Note: Subject was formerlly AfDed before and result was "delete". The content has not improved on this new creation as of previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs) 2018-06-19T04:47:54 (UTC)

Merge or redirect, per NZD and Jack N. Stock"s rational. Seems to be the best outcome. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top Totty[edit]

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

Non-notable product which briefly appeared in the news in 2012 because it was sold in the House of Commons and there was an objection to its name. The relevant information is contained in Slater's Ales, so a redirect to that article would be acceptable (a redirect has been tried and reverted). Unless a product is particularly notable, we follow the guidelines WP:Product, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH (which indicates that non-notable awards - such as the regional SIBA awards - are trivial coverage), and write about the product within the company article. The article on this product relates to a temporary news item - relevant guidelines on how we deal with temporary news items are WP:EVENTCRITERIA, Wikipedia:Notability#Events, and WP:SUSTAINED. The product in this case is almost a side issue, as it is merely the name that caught attention, and the product could have been a sandwich called Top Totty sold in the House. SilkTork (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are too many policies quoted in this nomination. The beer clearly meets the key one which is GNG by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It can't be merged into the brewer's article as it is too large. The episode raises questions of casual sexism in consumer culture, censorship, and the role of the role of the media that make the subject worthy of a stand-alone article. I note it was the subject of a DYK in 2015. While not determinative, non-notable subjects rarely make it through the DYK process on to the front page without someone AFDing them. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of those other policies do not apply, as the article clearly meets WP:GNG. It is too large compared to the possible redirect target, Slater's Ales, to be merged into it. Edwardx (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG with sufficient reliable 3rd party sources. Plus the article talks about the industry awards that it won and it's time in the bar prior before the press found out about it and it's amusing name. There is much more to this than just the synthetic outrage created at the time which caused a rise in publicity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Drinking Dilemmas. And notability does not expire. Andrew D. (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MEO (telecommunications company). Sandstein 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais, SA[edit]

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

Previously a redirect to MEO (telecommunications company) I believe this redirect was actually deleted in the past. The company no longer exists and became Meo so no justification for a standalone article since we already have an article on Meo. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology (to be completed)

* 1991 / March: created the TMN - (NIF 502600268) to operate the GSM mobile service that until then was operated by CTT

* 2000: PT creates the subsidiary company 'PT Comunicações, SA' '(NIF 504615947) <ref name = "NIF504615947"> https://www.racius.com/meo-servicos-de-comunicacoes- e-multimedia-sa-2 / </ ref> to operate landline, internet and cable tv

* 2001: Portugal Telecom, SA (NIF 503215058) is renamed "Portugal Telecom, SGPS" <ref name = "nifpt"> https://www.racius.com/pharol-sgps-sa/ </ ref> ref>

* 2007: PT Comunicações launches a triple play service (fixed telephone + IPTV + fixed internet) called 'Meo'. <Ref> https://www.telecom.pt/pt-en/a- pt / Pages / history.aspx </ ref>

* 2014 / January: the company with the NIF 502600268, until then denominated "National Mobile Telecommunications", is now renamed Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services' , Sa "<ref name = racius tmn "> https://www.racius.com/meo-servicos-de-comunicacoes-e-multimedia-sa/ </ ref> https://www.publico.pt/2014/ 11/26 / economy / news / pt-portugal-funde-en-comunicacoes-e-meo-1677447 </ ref>

* 2014/29 December: PT merges the subsidiaries "PT Comunicações" and "Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services", creating a single subsidiary company for fixed, mobile and television. "MEO - Communications and Multimedia Services, S.A." (NIF 502600268) is extinguished and integrated in PT Comunicações (NIF 504615947). On the same day, PT Comunicações changed its name, adopting the name of its subsidiary and was renamed "Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services", maintaining NIF 504615947 <ref> http://clubefornecedores.telecom.pt/EN/Documents/fusao_ptc_meo_en.pdf </ ref>

* 2015: Portugal Telecom SGPS is renamed "Pharol SGPS" (NIF 503215058) <ref name = "nifpt"> https://www.racius.com/pharol-sgps-s-a/ </ ref>

If we organize the previous information by NIF, we have:

NIF 502600268 (1991-2014). Company created in March 1991 as 'TMN. Somewhere in the 90's, it became a subsidiary of Portugal Telecom. In January 2014 changed the name to 'Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services, S.A.' . On December 29, 2014 it was extinguished and merged into the subsidiary PT Comunicações (NIF 504615947).
NIF 503215058 (1994-). Parent company founded in 1994 as' 'Portugal Telecom, S.A.' . Somewhere in the 1990s came to control TMN. In 2015 changed the name to Pharol SGPS
NIF 504615947 (2000-). Subsidiary of Portugal Telecom created in 2000 as' 'PT Comunicações, S.A.' . In 2007 he launched the "Meo" service. On December 29, 2014, it received all the assets of "Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services" (former TMN, NIF 502600268) and changed the name to a name exactly the same as the subsidiary it hosted (Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services, SA).

Of course, what is causing extreme confusion here was the coup that occurred on December 29, 2014, in which the name "Meo - Communications and Multimedia Services" was transferred from the company with NIF 502600268 (formerly TMN) to company with NIF 503215058 (formerly PT Comunicações). (translated from Portuguese by Google Translate of https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipédia:Fusão/Central_de_fusões/MEO;_TMN. Ribeiro2002rafael (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to MEO (telecommunications company). Same company older name.PRehse (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 Steps Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable private school. Google search turns up no news entries that aren't press releases. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 09:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 09:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of international schools in Singapore no news articles or government database sources to indicate notability. The school doesn't even have grade levels. [12] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect, I think, wouldn't be helpful. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn’t appear to be any assertion of notability or actual notability that I can find. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jameel Ahmad Malik[edit]

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

He leads the communist party of pakistan, a political party that has never won any seats etc, and remains unknown in the country. He has not been mentioned in detail by any media outlet, nor is his biography as a politician included in any book on pakistani politics. As such he falls short of WP:GNG. 2Joules (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not appear to satisfy notability as politician. Quis separabit? 21:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Enthiran (soundtrack). Sandstein 18:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arima Arima[edit]

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

As per WP:NSONGS. Information from this may be transferred to Enthiran (soundtrack). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enthiran (soundtrack) per nom. The claims of being a chart-topper are sourced to a no-longer-extent website, and the archived version doesn't support it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Beauregard[edit]

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

Subject does not mean WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. He is an unsuccessful candidate for office. Literally the only coverage cited to Independent Reliable Sources is about his campaign for congress, where he was eliminated in the primary. A search did not find any additional coverage. MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on the race he contested. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The person is not mentioned at United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#District_50, so I'm not sure whether a redirect is useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guy suspended his campaign six months before the primary election. To call him a candidate is even a stretch. At this point, he was just dabbling his toe in the water. A redirect isn’t even necessary for this. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the relist comment, a redirect isn't helpful or useful here. The person is primarily an activist and a Congressional campaign that ended 11 months before the election is a bad redirect target, even if he were mentioned there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful or withdrawn candidates in election primaries, but nothing else here is a strong notability claim. And there are no grounds for deeming him to pass GNG, either, as the sourcing is five-sixths his own primary source content about himself, and the one that's actually a reliable source is purely routine coverage of his campaign announcement in a local newspaper where every candidate's campaign announcement is simply expected to get exactly the same treatment — so it's not enough all by itself to deem his candidacy special. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but only for a sourced recreation. After 3 weeks, the article is still as entirely unsourced as it has been since 2008, making deletion mandatory per WP:V. Sandstein 18:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Effective Politics[edit]

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

Few references in media, does not meet WP:GNG and WP:IRS. Unreferenced article. Shobhit102 | talk 04:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 04:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 04:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't determined by sources in the article, but by coverage in existing sources. Per WP:GNG sources do not have to be in English, and searching the Russian name yields two good sources in Russian. Here is one entirely about the Foundation from gazeta.ru, one of the most popular new sites in Russia. Another from ria.ru a state-run news source in Russi is here. I don't speak Russian, so I don't really know where to look for more sources, but the fact that two relatively prominent Russian news organizations have written two separate articles on the topic convinces me that this is notable. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep between Wugapodes' sources and Media and Power I think there is more than sufficient to prove notability. It is a constantly talking body (less so now, but heavily over the years) so I'd be shocked not to come across plenty more sources that can meet sigcov if need be. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sultan[edit]

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

Director General of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless meet GNG. Search produce some namecheck type of press coverage but doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expanded the article and updated all 4 existing references and added 2 new references from Dawn (newspaper) and Pakistan Today (newspaper).

This article now has 2 additional references from independent sources:

Centre for Security and Energy Studies (Russia)
The News International (newspaper)

It's a stub article with likely further expansion in the future. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not pass GNG. the article has existed since 2013 without ever having any better sources added. --Saqib (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, it needed additional citations at the time of its nomination on 30 May 2018. Now, after some expansion, this stub article is sourced to 3 independent Pakistani newspapers and a Russian website. Anyone of us can improve it further now? Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is one need to establish the WP:N first. So far, I can't find a single source which can demonstrate that the subject merit a stand-alone entry here on WP. --Saqib (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed all unsourced 'original research' content from the article today. Removed allegations content against her by a single news reporter, yet to be proven in a court of law. Non-encyclopedic content (gossip?). It is noteworthy that she continues to hold her prominent positions in the government institutions as well as at the prestigious Pakistani universities and no action has been initiated against her by them since the allegations in 2016. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yassi Ashki[edit]

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

All the sources are practically mirror images of each other. None of the sources treat Tassi Ashki in depth. Fails WP:BIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some in-depth Persian coverage was added. Being featured in Mah-e Asal (TV series) especially shows in-depth coverage. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Fails WP:BIO. -- Dane ^talk 04:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not famous. Fatemi ♪ 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fars News Agency, Mashregh News, Shargh Newspaper, Young Journalists Club, Tasnim News Agency, Sobhe-no Newspaper, Javan Newspaper and Entekhab Website have published independent reports about Ashki. You can see the Persian coverage here. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several more sources and updated the information to be more clear. Passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There is ton of coverage about her in Farsi under her native name یاسی اشکی, but I think even the English sources cited in the article are just enough to satisfy GNG by themselves.[13][14][15] She is notable for her work with Ctrl-S, and has also recently been in the news in Iran for divisive comments she made about HPV and HPV vaccines. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CavinKare[edit]

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

Mainly primary sourced, for years. I wonder if this is not just plain promotion. Suggest to delete, or draftify if someone feels it can be rewritten. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, completely promotional and fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
THere's a lot written about this company, and I'm quite sure it'd pass our notability guidelines. However, I'll refrain from opining keep until I manage to clean up the article and add the references in there. —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on probably passing WP:NCORP if refs like this and this are considered reliable. Basie (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The TheHindu.com reference is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. The TimesOfIndia reference has not attributed journalist and the information is either attributed to anonymous sources (it says "people directly aware of the matter said") or based on an announcement from ChrysCapital (a connected party). It therefore fails as a reliable source in the first instance, and fails WP:ORGIND in the second. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCORP; just a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, fails the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations are from reliable sources but nothing other than those which passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia Watson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tradwife[edit]

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

Found few sources for this neologism. WP:NEO – Lionel^(talk) 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 'Manosphere.' Kashifv (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism; the NYTimes opinion piece is clearly not sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiazai[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of the article [16] states that the tribe is also known as Muhammad Hassani. Our article Mohammad Hassani lists "Khiyyazai" as one of the subtribes. None of these are sourced. – Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google books show that the Kiazi exist, and that they are a part of a larger tribe. Here are some specific mentions: [17] [18]. From what I've found it doesn't look like the Kiazai meet notability requirements, although its possible they may have gotten coverage in some really obscure sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Cruzeiro[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The references in the article are either directories, not independent of the subject, dead links, or don't mention the subject at all. Promotional in tone, this community center lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. ℯ xplicit 23:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what the alleged complaint is. The complaint has now been expanded to "the references in the article". Is the complainant referring to the page or the references provided in this discussion or on the original page?

If the former:

Ref.1: A commercial entity managing a multi-billion dollar port redevelopment in the centre of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Ref.2: A national newspaper Ref.3: A film commission Ref.4: A church based in Rio Ref.5: The British and Commonwealth Society

I have removed a dead link (thanks!), but the remaining references are neither directories nor lacking independence. Each has an independent board (please prove otherwise if you allege lack of). Furthermore, several are registered charities both here and abroad and so by their very nature HAVE to be independent or risk losing such status.

If the Baptist Convention itself (Ref. 2 in my talk discussion) is not an independent institution and cannot be listed... then it is a sad day for Wikipedia. There is nothing in the Guidelines that states that an organization that has (or even promotes) a belief is de facto not independent. The two can and should be mutually exclusive and any suggestion otherwise (in any form, in these pages or not) runs the risk of religious bigotry.

I still await evidence of a failure to comply with WP:ORG. If the complainant believes the "tone" of the article is "promotional", then please provide evidence and the page will be amended accordingly in accordance with the Guidelines.

Many thanks.

--Luke simone (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't a "complaint" and no one is passing judgement on what the organization does. It's simply not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. This content belongs on the org's website, not here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James and James Fulfilment[edit]

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

Non notable company. The creator seems to have confused awards with nominations as the links to sources of awards show only nominations. These awards are not that notable as well. The creator of the article is apparently a COI account made for the express purpose of creating this article. 2Joules (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. We really need to get a grip of SPA Lyndaship (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers[edit]

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

This list only has six entries, which is usually not considered to be enough for a standalone list. Furthermore, the list itself doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia that couldn't be included at Green Bay Packers. – Pee Jay 06:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason, the list containing even fewer entries:[reply]

Delete Already covered in the List of National Football League retired numbers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the retired numbers are also in Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers. Whatever additional information there may be in List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers should be included in Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame instead of a separate list. PK T(alk) 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retired numbers and the hall of fame are independent topics. What is the rationale for co-mingling them?—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, the general information is covered in the main articles, the minor details aren't really needed and alone the subjects aren't notable. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:SALAT, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:LISTPEOPLE for policies and guidelines regarding standalone lists. The basic guidelines include: a defined membership, notable people make up the list, and the list is discussed in reliable sources. The main reasons listed to delete are that the list is not long enough and that it can be included in the larger article. From what I can see, neither of these are established in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The list is clearly defined (if the Packers have formally retired a number), made up of notable people (all professional football players with extensive careers and accolades), and is discussed in reliable sources as a cohesive list (see Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, USA Today, ESPN just to name a few). This list needs to be expanded and improved, but that is never a reason to delete an article. This list should expand on various things that wouldn't be included in the Green Bay Packers article, including backgrounds on each player, why the organization decided to retire their number, discussion about unofficial retired numbers, and the addition of future retired numbers. The Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame is a completely different topic and would not be appropriate for the list of retired numbers. It appears that none of the delete votes are rooted in any policies or guidelines, and just comes down to the article not being good enough at this time. Note to the closing admin that deletion discussions should be based on adherence to policy before determining consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote wasn't about it being too short or belonging in the main article, it was about it not being notable by itself. Your criterias listed are all fine for list in Wikipedia articles, but for a list to have it's own page it still needs to be notable. WP:LISTN is the policy I would refer to. From the sources you provided, two are about Paul Hornung, and one is about Brett Farve. They all do mention and list the retired numbers but they are not discussing that list or group of players specifically. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the sources do not need to be only about the list itself, but has to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. As you just said, the list has been discussed as a defined group by independent reliable sources. The whole list is mentioned every time a new member is added. I guess I am not understanding the reasoning of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I had/have a different understanding of the policy and general rules for notability. I've always thought that if it's just a passing mention of it in a source, it wouldn't qualify towards notability for a list or a general article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers Meets WP:LISTN, as it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The significant Chargers specific prose currently in the list is not in List of National Football League retired numbers, nor should it be. It is also not in Los Angeles Chargers, which is in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up an interesting point, List of National Football League retired numbers is not a topic usually discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Most sources only address specific teams and their retired numbers. There really isn't any connection between different teams retired numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a content fork of a main article where the content already exists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Los_Angeles_Chargers#Retired_numbers is a small subset of Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, not a recopy or a POV fork.—Bagumba (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ¶ This is a list of employees who received special recognition by the company for which they worked (and two other employees who did not). Only citations two and five—both primary sources—discuss those listed (the former lists five people, the latter four). Two primary sources do not an article make, and can easily be folded into the parent company's article if editors there deem it appropriate. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 and 5 of Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers are not primary sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know; I was referring to this version of the article for which this nomination is titled: list of Green Bay Packers retired numbers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name of this nomination is confusing, because it added Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers afterwards. So you don't have an opinion on whether the 28 sources in the Chargers article meets LISTN?—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I followed the instructions at WP:AfD on how to create a multi-article nomination and this is what came up. I'm sorry for any confusion caused, but yes, the Chargers article is nominated for deletion under the same criteria as the Packers one – there is nothing in it that couldn't conceivably be merged into the Chargers main article. – Pee Jay 20:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: But why bloat the team article with the additional prose from Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers? This is standard WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to put the details in another article. While diehard fans already know the individual players, the prose gives the casual reader a high level overview on each player and the team's history of retiring numbers without having to click on the individual players in the list for details.—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, you did follow the AfD instructions correctly. I had thought the title should be more meaningful like with multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and not just use the first page as the title. Unfortunately, the instructions are inconsistent across domains. Go figure.—Bagumba (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a close assumption, but the truth is broader: I have no opinion on that second article whatsoever. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to sources mentioned by Gonzo fan2007, there is also "Green Bay Packers retired numbers, hall of fame classes". Journal Sentinel. July 16, 2015.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Lugnuts. Already covered in one big list (and elsewhere): no need for these two and 20+ more. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect List of National Football League retired numbers to Lists of National Football League retired numbers and create lists for the rest of the teams that retire numbers. WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers too Enough sources mentioned above to meet WP:LISTN. Sure there is little prose in the Green Bay list currently, but enough sources exists where it could be expanded and the page would be in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE like Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Bay Packers and Los Angeles Chargers respectively. This page duplicates information found elsewhere. If the New York Yankees don't need a separate article for retired numbers (they have 21), then clearly no other team does either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is generally not a compelling argument. The text at New York Yankees#Retired numbers should be spun out WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to a separate article that easily meets WP:LISTN. Also, take another look at Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, as it has more information than is at Los Angeles Chargers#Retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees retired numbers are covered by the Monument Park (Yankee Stadium) article. Spinning out another article just for their retired numbers would be redundant and duplicative. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees do seem like a unique case. That aside, I do see from your !vote below that you generally agree that team-specific retired number lists can meet LISTN and be standalone lists.—Bagumba (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider that Category:National Football League retired number navigational boxes contains many navboxes for teams' retired numbers, which are considered a very high honor. Per WP:NAVBOX No. 1: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. I don't think we want navboxes that are based off of sections of articles, which only invites more WP:NAVBOXCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for creation of the templates is that there should be an article on the subject. That does not mean that there needs to be an article if there is a template. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar team lists For point of comparison, there are also similar lists of honorees at Category:American football museums and halls of fame and Category:Major League Baseball museums and halls of fame. Those members are also enumerated in their respective team articles.—Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A team can retire numbers and that makes for a notable subject per WP:NLIST. Some of the comments I see above, like those of User:Fourthords, are addressable by adding more sources that do exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should do away with List of National Football League retired numbers, then, and simply have lists for each of the 32 teams (possibly more if now-defunct teams once retired some of their numbers). – PeeJay 14:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "List of National Football League retired numbers" is still a valid search term. If retired number lists existed for each respective team, we could just covert the NFL list to be a disambiguation page containing a link to the 32 individual team lists.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have recently expanded the article significantly and added many sources. Again, the Packers list their retired numbers on their website and have a physical sign in their stadium highlighting this. There are a significant number of sources that note this group as a uniquely identifiable group with a defined membership of notable people. Multiple reliable sources mention the number retirement ceremonies and the notability of the entire group. Brett Favre's recent retirement ceremony, which was covered nationally in various news agencies should be enough to justify. There is also discussion in sources about future expansion from three different players that may be retired at some point. I am not sure how much more it can be made clear that this article now meets all WP policies and guidelines, in my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The narrative portion of the Green Bay list has now been expanded to provide appropriate contextual information, and there is sufficient coverage of each team's retired numbers (as a cohesive topic) to satisfy WP:LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: You may have missed it, but as this was a joint AfD nomination with Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, I assume you are also fine with keeping it since it is also well-sourced?—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my vote is to keep both on grounds that there is sufficient coverage of "each team's retired numbers" as a cohesive topic to satisfy LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Sitez[edit]

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

Non notable "expert". A promotional mishmash article that is borderline CSD worthy. There are enough peacocks used to prop this up to fill a large zoo. For an expert he is a very low tendency to appear in the new; I could find only 6 mentions. 2Joules (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not unknown in Danish media as an expert on Afghanistan ("Malek Sitez" site:.dk) but there is a definitive lack of significant coverage about him, hence GNG/BASIC is not met and for now it is delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Hartman[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. As a person the subject is not notable enough, his company may be notable (and has an article on wikipedia already), but this does not automatically make him pass GNG. 2Joules (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I wrote in my prod (which someone removed without making any improvements), the cited sources fail to provide any significant or in-depth coverage of the subject. A company may be notable, but not necessarily the founder. I have to say also that the creator looks suspiciously like they've been here before under a different username, by having the knowledge to game the system by making 10 minor edits in quick succession for the purpose of becoming autoconfirmed so that a well-formed article could be created. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Paints[edit]

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

Run of the mill local paint company. Not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I first saw this article, it was completely unsourced. Since then, sources have been added. The question is, are the sources sufficient to meet WP:CORP? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anachronist I just checked the sources. They are local news outlets where news liek this is common everyday fodder. Nothing to push it over GNG. 2Joules (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the problem. NewsDay (Zimbabwean newspaper) and The Standard (Zimbabwe) look more like national news outlets — or at least they are both published by a large news organization. Zimbabwe is a small-ish country, about the size of California area-wise, so "local" and "national" might be basically the same thing. WP:CORP requires sources of at least regional, or national scope. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Anachronist Yes. I think that is part of the problem, a company like this will never get even a trivial mention in the US but it might be worthy of mention in daily news in a place like zimbabwe where large organization have to find something to publish. However, even in this situation, the company got only 4-5 mentions, so I don't think that it can pass WP:CORP 2Joules (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first three citations give significant coverage, more than mentions, so technically the subject complies with WP:CORP. But I agree also, a company like this in the United States would likely not merit an article. Unfortunately our policies and guidelines don't account for scale. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by national newspapers in Zimbabwe. Significant for offering painting services on credit unlike most paint manufacturers, although that text from an earlier version has now been edited out. A company can be both unexciting and notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like watching paint dry? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hurungudo (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) The company looks notable enough and have also added some controversies associated.[reply]
Weak keep while holding my nose. Technically it meets WP:CORP as I commented above, but this company wouldn't merit an article if it were in the United States with similar coverage. AFD isn't the place to refine our inclusion criteria, however, so at this time it seems we don't have grounds for deletion based on existing policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on existing sources - I also disagree with the description "local" given that they apparently have branches all over the country. The "controversy" section which has been added gives a different perspective - it was a bit repetitive so I have pruned it, but it seems to merit inclusion in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows. Consensus is that the book is notable, but the author not. Sandstein 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Leigh[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this person has coverage in reliable sources, by way of reviews or otherwise. Most of the sources in the article are either unreliable, questionably reliable or primary and not coverage. (a lot of blogs.) Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see wp:NAUTHOR - 2 reviews here [19]; [20]. Marthadandridge (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - I have listed some of her honors and distinctions in the article, and have documented two (favourable, as it happens) reviews of her work, there are more out there so her book is the notable topic. I see no evidence that nom has paid any attention to WP:BEFORE, or has understood that notability is measured by reality out there in the world, not by what is or is not already in the article. The sources that are there, by the way, include some blogs by staff of poetry magazines and other reliable institutions; these are perfectly satisfactory sources. This fine poet is well known in American poetry circles and has written and appeared in more than enough places to pass the GNG quite easily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well known in a circle doesn't make someone notable. I disagree about the blogs, particularly in the absence of coverage in other reliable sources. Someone's blogspot is totally meaningless, as is a website review that accepts submissions specifically from the writers. Please indicate which of the awards and honors are notable because a list of awards that aren't notable is meaningless. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, winning prizes and being made editor of different magazines indicates prominence in her field, just as those things would in a scientist or engineer or lawyer. Scientific notability, for instance, derives entirely from being cited by other scientists, i.e. exactly "in a circle", that is precisely how notability works in a profession; the same goes for notability in law, or medicine, so it isn't something special to poetry. Personal blogs would not be reliable sources, but that is just a smokescreen here: WP:RS is quite clear that institutional ones can be relied upon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide actual RS that support this because right now the sources breakdown like this:

a basic profile on a website
a profile from the publishing company
a profile with a poem substantially the same as all the others
a listing of her poems on a website where anyone can submit something
a profile and a poem on a website where anyone can submit
just her name and her poem
another website that accepts submissions from anyone
a staff listing
a blog piece from some random blogger, not rs
a rumpus piece which I question the validity of but will accept as the sole piece of actually decent coverage
a hyper local magazine that is the equivalent of a blog
a blog and an interview
an event listing
a good reads award list for a non-notable award on an unreliable website.

So what of these is the hard and fast proof of notability as covered in reliable sources? I'll take your comparison to other professions and say that if this were an engineer, we'd require them to be widely cited or otherwise covered in verifiable sources which are also reliable. A bunch of bloggers writing about them wouldn't cut it. This is, at best an overly fluffed vanity piece. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally hesitate to respond to anyone arguing in that tone, and would ask that language like "a bunch of bloggers" be withdrawn as discourteous and inappropriate at AfD. As for "overfluffed vanity piece", that cannot be so as I'm not the poet and it doesn't look as if the article's creator is either: she started the article as part of the Women in Red initiative.

However, since the use that I and the article's creator have made of these sources is modest and straightforward, I will make an exception, assuming good faith and in the hope that we may resolve this matter rationally.

1 Connotation Press: supporting the fact she is a poet.
2 Four Way Books, publisher, supporting the fact of her graduation.
3 Drunken Boat, a long-established electronic journal, supporting the bare fact that she has published there.
4 Pank magazine, similarly.
5 Rattle magazine, similarly.
6 North American Review, similarly.
7 Solstice, similarly.
8 Hyphen magazine, to verify the claim that she is an editor there, contributing to notability.
9 A well-known poet, cited as a person with authority within his field. This is a legitimate usage of a personal blog. The ref is relied upon to support the claim that she edited Kartika Review, surely not a fact anyone would doubt, and one that contributes to notability.
10 A "piece of actually decent coverage" - glad we agree, but if you accept Rumpus you should accept Portage and other poetry magazines. The Rumpus review certainly supports notability.
11 Portage, a respected modern poetry magazine. The review by Steve Schauz is quoted to describe Leigh's work.
12 Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle Board of Directors, is cited to support the claims that Leigh has received awards and fellowships from the named sources.
13 The event notice from a famous institution, the Smithsonian's Asian Pacific American Center, is cited as above to establish that Leigh has received multiple awards and fellowships. This does not seem to be in doubt, and contributes to notability.
14 A news report from a sober and quiet books website, GoodReads, of a respected poetry award. The claim does not seem to be in any doubt, and it contributes to notability.

I've added another review, in the unchallengeably authoritative American Book Review. I think we have "multiple reliable sources" here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows and repurpose. The book has been reviewed numerous times, including in reliable sources such as American Book Review. The author has received little to no coverage in reliable sources beyond reviews of that one book whose reception already forms about 80% of the article's content. The book seems notable enough; the author doesn't. Huon (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work fine, the small amount of author bio then serving as brief context for the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the dissenting opinion again, but I'm not sure that I agree that the single review in that source qualifies the work or the author as being notable. And to address Chiswick's edit, again, Goodreads is not a reliable source for the same reason imdb and Wikipedia are not: it can be edited by anyone and your claim that there isn't any doubt is incorrect but it's also not a notable award. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "Chiswick Chap", thanks. Methinks thou dost protest too much. There are multiple reliable sources for the book. The statement that Leigh won the prize is multiply sourced also, so we needn't rely on GoodReads' word for it, though they are certainly correct on this simple matter of fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more who cares if she won a prize? I won my 5th grade spelling bee and several others after that as well as several photography prizes throughout high school and college. They all have names and there are published articles about them. None of them are notable. That was my point. And there are tons of sources, sure, but none which are in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Also kind of ironic you chide me for "protesting too much" all the while accusing me of basically being uncivil for calling a blogger a blogger. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely had no business messing with my username, for which you have not so far apologized. The prizes and magazines are exactly the ones that are significant in American poetry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Perhaps you can clarify, how did I "mess with your username"? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you divided it innocently. FYI, it's indivisible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salvage content for Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: it seems that TonyTheTiger is !voting for MOVE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (totally offtopic), i dont mind being referred to as "coola":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for authors is not about what they write but what others write about them. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Blogs about the author really don't count, awards which aren't of themselves notable also don't count. Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've more or less agreed it's a book article (to be renamed), and review blogs by poetry magazines and other poets certainly contribute to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs by individual poets most certainly do not contribute to notability, please see WP:RELIABLE. A review by an established magazine would, but its blog is questionable. Ifnord (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

umm, not quite correct Ifnord, having a look at WP:UGC under "Exceptions", we see "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", so if the poet is mega notable their blog would probably be ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blog of the "mega poet" is cited as a source simply to "support the claim that she edited Kartika Review." -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree, btw i wasnt saying any of the cited blogs are by a "mega poet". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows (remove the redirect), that is notable (ie. multiple reviews), and rewrite accordingly. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The quality of sourcing doesn't look much convincing and this needs more eyes.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantial evidence of independent notability. I find time for blogs but I have not time for blogs. [Blogs are] largely not acceptable [as sources], the book says. Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows." - when The Gnome regrets reading through the AfD.

Unsigned comment by Nosebagbear.

Rename (that you call merge) to Sparrows is clearly the sensible option. The only personal blog, and one that the article barely relies on, is from the Ottawa poet Michael Dennis, described by Open Book Ontario as "during the 1980s, easily the most published poet in Ottawa, with poems in several hundred magazines and journals." We are quite entitled to use authoritative opinion such as of well-known poets to comment on other poets. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - The article has scant information about the author, but rather seems to be constructed as a book. Go with that, and add a banner for WP:BOOKS — Maile (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 D.C. United Women season[edit]

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

PRODed the article, with the reason being "season that fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG", which was removed. Stated reason was "League was basically professional by this point, meets NSEASONS". I don't know if there's a separate consensus for this league but it isn't included in WP:FPL, so I'm not clear as to how/why this meets WP:NSEASONS. With the only citation listed being the standings from that season, WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per contested PROD. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040: - please don't just cite the prod, since everyone else doesn't have it immediately to hand and it makes it tricky to discuss it and use it to justify your !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. Hmlarson (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really sure how WP:GNG is satisfied from these sources. ~~Pretty much~~ Almost all of the new sources constitute WP:ROUTINE (specifically sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). The Sauerbrunn signing and the name change wouldn't be routine, but I don't see how they indicate notability of this season. Jay eyem (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For me, the fact a number of routine sources from major publications exist show that routine coverage of the season existed, thereby making it notable "by the sum of its parts." I'd make a different argument for almost every other type of article on Wikipedia, but a sports season shouldn't need multiple feature articles to be notable - continuous routine coverage should be fine. SportingFlyer talk 19:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I really do not understand this argument. WP:FOOTY already has an absurdly low bar regarding assumed notability, and the notion that you can string together multiple instances of routine coverage to create assumed notability sounds like original research and synthesis to me. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't quite meet GNG, with sources like this appearing positive but actually being upsettingly brief. If @Hmlarson: can find one or two more then I'll be happy to change my mind... Giant Snowman 09:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources provided, and probably NSEASONS too, per my de-PROD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should GNG apply? The seasons page basically fails WP:NSEASONS as club did not play in a fully-pro league. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the keep per WP:GNG, merge to 2012 D.C. United season. I just re-read WP:NSEASONS which doesn't preclude seasons for teams in not top professional leagues from having season articles. It just means they have to pass WP:GNG, whereas a top professional league would be presumed to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as with the other AfD, I particularly oppose merging due to the nuanced nature of the ownership and intellectual property concerns involved. The team only has a loose affiliation with the MLS franchise D.C. United, and does not belong in its season article. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are by and large not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. The one argument that does try to explain how it meets GNG is essentially a WP:SYNTH argument, i.e. that numerous instances of routine coverage somehow makes the subject inherently meet GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the nominator. You can't !vote again. You're free to comment, but please strike your second !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I stated in the other AfD, AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't make a difference if I "vote" twice since it is my arguments that make a difference. Also, the AfD was relisted, so its entirely appropriate to re-emphasize my points. I will make it more clear that I am the nominator, but I'm not striking the entire comment. Jay eyem (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to strike the whole comment, I'm just asking you to strike the bolded delete !vote as you already !voted. You are, of course, free to comment again, but not to !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I'll do so. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 D.C. United Women season[edit]

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

Proposing this alongside the other AfD for the same reasons. Team season that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Sources listed are standings, a roster, and a few post-season awards, which don't demonstrate WP:GNG for the season. Fails WP:NSEASONS as the league not listed under WP:FPL so team seasons within that league aren't assumed to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. See also: 2012 D.C. United Women season. Hmlarson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the SoccerWire reference is better, but I don't see how the other sources added address the WP:GNG concerns. Two of them are routine coverage (Boston.com and Washington Spirit sources, the latter of which is also WP:PRIMARY). The Washington Post article relegates this season to a footnote at the end of its article, so I don't see how that helps either. Jay eyem (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing important about this season, so no coverage. Giant Snowman 09:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources and probably NSEASONS as well. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS at all, the club didn't play in a fully-pro league. The first citation has one line about the club and doesn't address anything other than who they play their first game. The second citation addresses the club and not the season. One citation has a game report and the rest are WP:ROUTINE, after analysing all together this seems a clear failure for WP:GNG towards a season article. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the keep per WP:GNG and the merge target to 2011 D.C. United Season (we do similar things with aussie rules articles if I remember correctly with the men's and women's season on the same page). SportingFlyer talk 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say, due to the weird nature of how the ownership works and the intellectual property concerns in this particular situation, I particularly oppose a merge. Even though they use the name, it's not run by the same organization, and thus I don't think it should be merged into the 2011 D.C. United season. Jay eyem (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've already voted as the nominator, you don't get to vote again. Season notability is shown by ongoing coverage, as it's an event which takes place over a period of time. It's difficult to find non-routine articles about a sports season. And they do exist, and in a variety of different sources. [21] This is easily sourced, even if other teams may not be, and I maintain keeping or merging this information is proper. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was relisted for a more full discussion, and AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't really make a difference if I "vote again". If in-depth coverage exists of these team seasons that are not assumed to meet WP:NSEASONS by playing in a fully professional league, then this needs to be demonstrated. Thus far, it has not been demonstrated (especially not the source you just provided, announcing a new assistant coach does nothing to establish the notability of this season), and using synthesis to combine a bunch of non-notable routine coverage to create assumed notability to meet WP:GNG is absurd. Did you look at the eight different examples of precedent that I provided that were almost the exact same situation? And you haven't even addressed why the specific merging you are suggesting is improper due to the nature of the ownership and intellectual property issues involved. I have no problem merging it to "D.C. United Women", but they absolutely should not be merged with the relevant D.C. United season articles. Jay eyem (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment usually that means other users who have not seen the discussion get the right to add to the consensus. It does make a difference because it looks like you're trying to swing the discussion towards your delete vote. I have no idea what would constitute non-routine coverage for a season. Numerous secondary sources reported on both this season and the 2012 season. Also, your eight precedents (three are red links) do not actually create precedent for this article: if an WP:NSEASON article can pass WP:GNG, it should be kept, even if the season isn't fully professional: it does not override WP:GNG. None of the links you provided mention that. At the very least this needs to be redirected. I still think a merge is proper so we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, it is not a vote, so it is my arguments that are important rather than the "delete vote" or my "swing[ing] the discussion". And again, the precedent absolutely applies because its precisely the same situation as the others: None of the sources provided in this article offer significant and non-routine coverage, so it fails WP:GNG (how announcing an assistant coach is supposed to establish notability for this season is beyond me). And yes three are redlinks because they were PRODed and deleted precisely because they failed WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and they apply because they were team seasons for teams that played in a non-fully professional league, thus do not pass that assumption of notability, and had inadequate sourcing like this one. You, and others in this thread, still have not explained how these "numerous sources" qualify this season for WP:GNG or why your proposed merger is inappropriate. A merge or redirect to D.C. United Women is fine, a merge to 2011 D.C. United season absolutely is not. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to comment again, but not to !vote. Once again, please strike your bolded delete !vote. You are free to leave the rest of the comment but please don't WP:BADGER anyone. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, there are articles in reliable news publications which constitute continual professional coverage of the season. You keep saying WP:GNG isn't met, but I have no idea what you think the test for passing WP:GNG for a continuing event would be. Also, this is the first time I've ever seen an AfD nominator make an argument immediately following a relist. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, but it does go against norms, and I would please ask you to strike your vote. SportingFlyer talk 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose a merge with the DC United article per Jay eyem even if his double !voting is entirely inappropriate. The clubs have no connection. It's not an appropriate target. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I've stricken it and replaced it with a "comment". And for the record, my asking for clarification and pointing out that points are inadequate are not badgering, since I'm not demanding that anything be done (other than the need for in-depth coverage, which is entirely appropriate for an AfD, and maybe why the first proposed merge had an inappropriate target). Jay eyem (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Nielsen (entertainer)[edit]

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

PROD removed by the creator. Even the author admits that the subject has "otherwise been ignored". If he has been ignored by RS, we should ignore him as well. 2Joules (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, lacks significant, reliable coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of the worst examples of a vanity, unencyclopedic article I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are useless, but I kind of admire someone who includes the quote "The nicest man I've ever met" when writing about himself. Vexations (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jack of all trades, received reliable media coverage for none. This article might as well be in the "About" section at his Facebook page, and maybe it is. Also, instead of describing himself as being ignored, a better self-promoter would describe himself as a behind-the-scenes kind of guy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to work your format yet. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong. It's written tongue-in-cheek, but it is factual. I don't see why inserting humor takes away from the presentation. "The nicest man I've ever met" is a legit quote from William Moody (Paul Bearer) who was my friend and mentor, who's web site I still operate in his memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plowboykurt (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Shovlin[edit]

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

He is a property developer. Ok. But why he should be on wikipedia? This question has not been answered anywhere in the article. As such he fails GNG. 2Joules (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable property developer, fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information provided has enough in-depth coverage for stand-alone biography article and represents basic facts about the individual. I noticed a lot of biography pages for individuals on Wikipedia are similar. Therefore I would suggest adding either a stub note or notice that this article may not meet Wikipedia’s notability. (Please have a look at the following examples: Jorge L. Araneta, Thomas Kramer, Michael Shanly) Littledger (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)— Littledger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Littledger: Please don't make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Each article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what else may exist on Wikipedia. Adding a notability tag doesn't solve the problem; if a subject is not notable, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The only valid argument for keeping is what you wrote in your first sentence above. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable & promotionalHeshiv (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1188 AM[edit]

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while stand alone lists for radio stations based on frequency are often kept, a list of a single item where additional items are unlikely to be added in the near future should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of questionably notable radio stations. Not enough for WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

558 AM[edit]

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

Non-notable radio frequency Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1332 AM[edit]

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi House[edit]

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

Does not meet standard notability guidelines. Web search found affiliated sites and fan sources. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. This is just a fanmade article, unsuitable for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a few news reports about it being licensed (which is odd considering it's English first place), I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search reveals at least two extensive reviews from Anime News Network and IGN. This is plenty to pass WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTE. The article does need to be cleaned up, but AFD is not for cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add FandomPost to the list of reviews. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN and Fandom Post articles appear promising, but I'm skeptical of Right Turn Only since it was discussed along with other series as opposed to a stand alone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the problem. To cite the notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Regards So Why 12:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is covered along with other titles should not be an issue. The section involving the review of Aoi House is very extensive and is in no way trivial. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article and expanded the reception section to include reviews from 4 different reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheFarix's sources. Three sources significantly covering the subject seems sufficient. Plus, there's also this IGN coverage from the article. Problems with the article's tone can be addressed by editing. Also, on a side note, what happened to WP:ATD? This could and should easily be merged to the author's article if stand-alone notability is found lacking. Regards So Why 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources prove it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources, including IGN, to note its notability. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warren C. White[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article of a small town mayor which fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. In my search for sources, I found a few brief mentions of him, about how he and his wife went on holiday (small town paper), a New York Times article about his indictment for malfeasance - though only two sentences long, and mentions in old newspapers. While those sources exist, they either cover him in the scope of his political career, or are trivial, and not enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not planning on updating the page and am slightly underwhelmed by the subject, so don't plan on !voting. I did look him up on newspapers.com, and found some coverage: in 1900 his Mayoral campaign got some brief coverage noting his wealth and status as a lumber baron and tile and brick company owner,[22] Here is a link to the aforementioned indictment report in the NY Times,[23] a hotel he was staying at was partially blown up in 1905,[24] and here is a link to an obit in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.[25] Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cumberland MD is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primrose path[edit]

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

Simply a dictionary definition. E Eng 04:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to lack encyclopedic notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Louis University Ice Pavilion[edit]

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

Lack of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The only source that is given appears to be a website that proposes the development of this project and does not appear reliable. The Saint Louis University Ice Pavilion is not mentioned in any other sources. LittleT889 (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the only place this is mentioned is a fan site. It’s also riddled with errors and dated info. The Chaifetz Arena has been in existence for 10 years. This looks like unfounded speculation based on a proposal made years ago but died on the vine. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there any news articles detailing the proposal, then you can reconsider putting it in the developments section for St. Louis University, but not as is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spent a little time trying to track this supposed proposed ice arena down (found that the university once had an ice hockey team). found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Base Ball Park[edit]

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

Lack of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The only source that is given does not mention Base Ball Park. Furthermore, according to the Wikipedia page regarding Joplin Miners, there is contradicting information regarding the ball park where the team played (in that article, Cox Park was the ball park in the years 1902-1906 (source provided)). I was unable to find any sources that corroborates the existence of Base Ball Park. LittleT889 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Only source is from a database. SportingFlyer talk 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much in my BEFORE. The only reference seems to be baseball-reference which is a copy of Wikipedia (did not get into who copied who).Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails V, but also WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Base Ball Park was a common name at that time for, you guessed it, baseball parks.[26] If more can't be said about a park in Joplin (at that time population ~30,000), then I don't see the subject as very encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name might refer to any venue for baseball. If it referred to a specific one, I would want a redirect to the club, but with such a generic name that is undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to baseball park as it is a valid search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable. History should not be preserved here, but a new redirect to Baseball park can be made separately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above this seems to lack verification and there is no real sign of any notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Barista. Sandstein 11:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baristas[edit]

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

Minor start-up that, from all appearances, is heading downhill. Other than a burst of publicity a few years ago for having bikini-clad baristas, there's been no real coverage, and even the fact that the company shut down all of its locations had to be sourced from a press release. Calton | Talk 03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

the press release: "Baristas Coffee Co. Shutters All Retail Locations, Going Wholesale & Direct"
company HQ: according to the company web site and Google Maps, company HQ is a house in the Seattle suburb of Kenmore. --Calton | Talk 03:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If nothing else, this article is outdated, since the company no longer has any retail stores (they sold their last store over a year ago). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as lacking independently published reliable sources. All I can find is press-releases and press-release-based publications. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Barista. Article is full of hype and bullshit about a non-notable coffee company. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed about 75% of the article content as promo bullshit sourced only to their own press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. A. Fisher[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, mostly primary sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Rusf10: apologies if I'm off base, but it looks like you've submitted a number of Ashland mayors in quick succession to Articles for discussion with fairly short nominating statements. Can you describe a bit your WP:BEFORE so that efforts to look up and better understand the encyclopedic suitability of the individual aren't overly duplicated. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy:Sure, no problem. I didn't include much in this nomination because there really isn't anything to include. My BEFORE search came up with nothing besides what is already in the article. The article uses four sources, one is a local history book and the other three are primary. Given the information in the article he doesn't seem to clear WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SOLDIER--Rusf10 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't find an entry for Fisher in any of the Kentucky encyclopedias indexed on google books, (for instance [27], [28] and [29]), although some of the other mayors you nominated do have entries. I'll look at the others later, but I don't find much for Fisher beyond the History of Ashland dead-link which doesn't have snippets online. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Eba[edit]

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

Continuing the series on non-notable mayors of Ashland, Kentucky. This guy also fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a small town mayor sourced basically to only one book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 23:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. R. Dysard[edit]

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Almost all sources fit into one of two categories: local or unreliable. The book " African American preachers and politics: the Careys of Chicago" has a quote that is presumably from him, but it doesn't even mention him by name. Even if it did, that's not enough to establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local politician with no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Brodess[edit]

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article is sourced to local newspaper, a local history book, and two unreliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only thing close to being a sign of notability is being a Republican National Convention delegate, but since each convention has a few hundred, if not thousands of delegates (the Republicans have less than the Democrats), this is not really a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found primary sources from his military service and later life. Important mentions in Ashland history as its first mayor. Missing was any WP:INDEPTH coverage of his activities. gidonb (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Newman[edit]

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

Biographical article of a small-town mayor that clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only sources are a local history book and the local newspaper. Deproded for unknown reasons. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I proded this almost a week ago as I sorted through non-notable mayor stubs. I've proded very few of the articles I've nominated for deletion, but this mayor was so non-noteworthy after a before sketch I didn't think anyone would have a problem with it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 04:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you didn't count on is a particular editor who thinks all biographies deserve inclusion. He feels its his right to deprod articles without explanation.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also note there are a few other mayors of this town who probably fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:- One step ahead of you, I nominated several of them. I won't like thme all here, just check the delsort. It seems an editor felt like creating an article for every mayor his town has ever had.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SportingFlyer. The sourcing does not meet a level necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Unclear rationale for deprodding. Reyk _YO! 19:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Crew Soccer Club[edit]

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

Not a notable soccer club; doesn't appear to be part of any organized league and there are no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable football club. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. NZFC^(talk) 03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as what people reported above, failing GNG and WP:ORG. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTY and NCORP - not notable. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no evidence that even the league is notable. Nzd (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As described in the article and in this source, the club is dedicated to the development of youth soccer based out of Montville and Fairfield, NJ. JCSC introduces children to the exciting sport of soccer and provides professional skills training and high level competition designed to meet the needs of committed players year round." They may offer professional training, but this is not a professional team anywhere in the US soccer pyramid. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Allington[edit]

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

Not a notable soccer player. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the references are to this person's own files and include trivia like his goals scored in a U-10 league. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its the guys personal blog created on Wikipedia. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 03:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography of a player who has not played at a notable level of football. Article creator/subject contended in an edit summary that he plays in "a professional standard league", but as far as I can see the EDP is strictly a youth league, which doesn't come even close to meeting the usual definition of "professional" in a sports context....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did the guy write his own bio on wiki? Anyway, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like his blog or even an amateurish autobiography. I am of the opinion this should be deleted immediately as promotional.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more to add. Clear GNG fail. SportingFlyer talk 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above fails the notability requirements, at the age of 18 this is obviously WP:TOOSOON and article can always be recreated if and when subject meets said notability guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of educational websites for children[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list; no clear inclusion criteria; not encyclopedic in character. Declined prod. Neutrality^talk 02:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Not so sure about WP:NOR, though. This is definitely just "what's the difference" between a very small section of the category. DudeTheNinja (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that there is nothing particularly useful that the article provides which couldn't be provided in a category, such as Category:Educational websites for children (I don't think age ranges in the article offer that much value). If there was a deeper comparison being provided and a greater variety of sites, then it would still be in dodgy territory for inclusion anyway. As it stands, a category could instead be used with this article and the existing redirect of Comparison of educational websites should also be deleted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could this be renamed to List of educational websites for children?, with the article being appropriately rewritten?Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Other Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello. In the previous AfD discussion, concerns were raised that this event may never have existed, and these concerns have not been addressed by better sourcing this time around. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and per previous AfD. Could this be a canditate for speedy? I can't see the deleted version, but this version sprung into being fully formed in a single edit, so I suspect it's just a recreation of the old article. Anyways: no real sources and not even an assertion of notability. Also WP:OR issues: What is an "average setlist"? And what is the topic of this page, anyways? Is it the Significant Other tour, or is it the Limptropils, Family Values, and Billionaire Pirates Tours? Was there such a thing as the Significant Other tour? Yilloslime (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article fails the following speedy delete criteria:
- Very likely fails G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion;
- Probably fails A7: No indication of importance.

Egroeg5 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Betz family mystery[edit]

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

No reliable, in-depth secondary sources relating to this fringe topic. Neutrality^talk 00:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only non-fringe source I could find was from Skeptoid, so the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFRINGE per lack of referencing extensively in reliable sources. Nanophosis (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, trivia; per WP:Fringe and WP:Not News. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Too soon.....The performance was pleasing but regrettably, that doesn't improve the notability of the subject.Trivial event-related-coverage in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:TOOSOON founded on and had its first performance at Kala Mandir on 20 April 2018 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:TOOSOON as per User talk:Winged Blades of Godric above. Even speedy deletion would probably have been justified. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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