Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Forgot a Google Scholar WP:BEFORE check was required, so withdrawing. Marking for source improvement. (Nominator withdrawal) (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Pittet[edit]

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

BLP does not appear to have any sources that prove notability, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, and certainly not WP:BLP. There is a claim of notability of being widely cited in two fields, but this claim is not backed up by a source that appears reliable. WP:BEFORE did not turn up anything of credible notability either. Books published are not notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inadequate WP:BEFORE if it didn't involve looking at Google Scholar, which shows the subject's work cited over 21,000 times, easily passing WP:NACADEMIC#1. Bakazaka (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penn–Yale football rivalry[edit]

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

Another in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero supporting citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage") in my view.

Non-GNG callouts:

site:newspapers.com is good for sourcing significant historical coverage
site:nytimes.com is another, including the very minor[1]
Modify as helpful, but neither returned much for me.
site:pennathletics.com yale rivalry football seems to avoid usage in articles where you'd expect to find it
site:yalebulldogs.com penn rivalry (primary source issues aside) returns [2] UW Dawgs (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's only a rivalry in the sense some sportswriters used the term to describe one team playing another, which is a correct definition of the word, but not the definition we use here to determine whether two schools are rivals. Not an actual rivalry, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rivalries are not notable unless reliable sources have given them significant coverage. Rzvas (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (role-playing game)[edit]

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

Article on a commercial product has lacked independent sources of any kind for the last 12 years; the only reference in article is to product's manual. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find anything in RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO violation, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only source is WP:PRIMARY. SportingFlyer talk 07:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after source I added and if more can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one source does not constitute notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laois Senior’A Hurling Championship[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Not only does Google turn up nothing of substance for laois "senior a hurling championship, it turns up little for "senior a hurling championship" altogether. I don't know what "Senior’A Championship" means, but, for hurling, it categorically has almost no coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7, as when I arrived at the article, I saw that it had an AFD tag on it that was pointing to the deletion discussion for a different article. I just noticed that that tag was placed there by the article's creator, so perhaps it amounts to deletion requested by author. Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship (3rd nomination). Ajf773 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ajf773. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone; has an improperly-formatted title, but even without such issues it's still non-notable like the other similar pages. I've heard another page similar to this one has been AfD'd multiple times (all either without consensus or a consensus to delete), so at worst maybe salt, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --John M Wolfson (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Marrale[edit]

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

Biography's sources are largely not WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:RS. A BEFORE search is frustrated by a better known high school baseball player, however, the handful of sources found are generally quotes or fleeting mentions and not significant, biographical coverage. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McCann (footballer, born 1982)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY, having not played international football or in a fully professional league. No indication of significant coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. There is a source is to a BBC news article about McCann, but this is routine coverage about an injury. Jellyman (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the article in my more naïve days. Agree as per reasons given by GiantSnowman. Andygray110 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:Footy and WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 17:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shigenobu Nagamori. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamori Foundation[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Not a notable enough organisation, and only founded in 2014. Anything covered here can easily be merged into Shigenobu Nagamori. Edwardx (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shigenobu Nagamori. The awards get some RS coverage, eg [3] [4] [5], but even jawiki does not have a separate article on the foundation (永守財団), and the paragraph of useful information is already in the Shigenobu Nagamori article's Philanthropy section. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shigenobu Nagamori until notability is completely established. --RaviC (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoKitties[edit]

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

Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain articles are under general sanctions. The sources cited in the article I would largely view as unreliable, as they are primarily publications within the crypto realm. (Though Industry publications are not inherently unreliable) I'm just not seeing the notability, other than the WP:TRIVIA of being the first "game" to incorporate blockchain technology. Bkissin (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Easily passes WP:GNG by a longshot. Has Venturebeat [6], Bloomberg [7], NPR [8], CNET [9], NYT.com [10], Fortune [11], TechCrunch [12], San Francisco Chronicle [13], BBC [14], SSRN (academic) [15], about 5 more google books sources, etc. @Bkissin: did you even bother to look at google news [16] or google books [17] before nominating this? Note WP:Trivia also has no bearing on WP:GNG, thus your nomination doesn't even state a valid reason for nomination (as there clearly are a lot of high quality WP:RS that features the article's subject). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in spite of our usually well-warranted skepticism for topics such as this, it seems the NYT article along with the others just mentioned are sufficient to justify it. I tend to be rather suspicious about coverage based on press releases, but the NYT article at least seems genuinely reliable and the CBC only slightly based upon the company's PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks DGG. I wasn't 100% on it, but I figured that it was worth the discussion given the number of sources and notability. But Smithandteam is right, perhaps this was more of a WP:Snowball situation. Bkissin (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:Snowball - this is a very notable scam (/s WP:SOAP). @SmithAndTeam (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptris[edit]

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

The best article I can find on it is Lifehacker and it simply describes what the program is. All the rest spend more time on describing what a 3D modeling program or Pixologic is than on Sculptris itself. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It gets coverage in books, nothing much on news though. [18][19][20]. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goji's[edit]

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

Small-scale fro-yo chain that fails WP:NCORP, specifically from a lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. Only cited to one source (dead link) but that source appears to deal with frozen yogurt in general and not this brand specifically. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up much else. Teemu08 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - violates WP:YELLOW and WP:PROMO. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Productions[edit]

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

Cannot see how this company meets. WP:GNG. Sole claim to fame is production of a single bit of youtube content, JK Divorce Entrance Dance, a spoof of JK Wedding Entrance Dance. The company possible merits a redirect to the latter article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the refs in the article don't support notability, i googled for them and tried news, nothing there I can see. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AB Liner[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AB Liner finds a few mentions in accident related news articles, however that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV regarding the subject itself. --RaviC (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vallacar Transit (VTI)#History. Stuff can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Transit of Mindanao[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Vallacar Transit (VTI)#History in lieu of deletion. Vallacar Transit is notable. I have posted sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vallacar Transit (VTI) demonstrating that sources have called Vallacar Transit "the largest bus company in the Philippines" (Asian Development Bank) and "the largest bus fleet in the country" (The Philippine Star).
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yanson Group of Bus Companies[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is vague - there are sources in the article so are they reliable? If not, then what would be reliable sources? Peter James (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Peter James sources may be reliable but may still not meet the criteria for establishing notability - please see WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, references are either in-passing or are not intellectually independent failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages nor a substitute for a corporate webpage. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much about this, most the sources don't mention it, and I'm not sure what it is - presumably a corporate group but is it a holding company, or a group of separate companies under the same ownership or management? Vallacar Transit seems to be mentioned quite a bit in the news, and is likely to be notable. Peter James (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Vallacar Transit (VTI)#History (where it is already discussed) in lieu of deletion. Peter James (talk · contribs), you are correct that Vallacar Transit is notable. I have posted sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vallacar Transit (VTI) demonstrating that sources have called Vallacar Transit "the largest bus company in the Philippines" (Asian Development Bank) and "the largest bus fleet in the country" (The Philippine Star).
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's so funny to know that the wikipedia article of the biggest bus company in the Philippines is being nominated for deletion. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.67.56 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Liner[edit]

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They sponsor the football club Ceres–Negros F.C., is that a good claim to notability? In addition, there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage about the company, although they appear to mostly be about accidents involving their buses, or news about their fares. With that said, there does appear to be some coverage about the company, such as this link and this link, but I'm not sure of their reliability (the latter link appears to be a local newspaper of some kind). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the sponsor of the football club Ceres–Negros F.C. is a good claim to notability. In addition to the sources Narutolovehinata5 found, I also found this article from Sun.Star's Superbalita Cebu and this article from The Philippine Star. I also found this book source:
- Basilio, Enrico L.; Frielink, Barend; Acena, Jeremiah; Hernandez, Rafael; Faustino, Jaime (April 2010). Bridges across Oceans: Initial Impact Assessment of the Philippines Nautical Highway System and Lessons for Southeast Asia (PDF). Metro Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-971-561-896-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
  The book notes:
  New Business Opportunities for Transport Companies
  
  With an expanded Ro-Ro network in place throughout the country, the trucking industry has widened its market coverage and is gradually undergoing a major transformation in the manner in which it conducts business. The following case study focuses on the impact of Ro-Ro on Vallacar Transit Corporation, the largest bus company in the Philippines.
  
  Vallacar Transit Corporation
  
  Vallacar Transit Corporation runs a number of major fleets, including Vallacar Transit, Rural Transit of Mindanao, Bachelor Express, and Ceres Transport. To date, it has the largest bus fleet in the country with more than 2,000 buses operating in the provinces of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (Table 9). The following paragraph gives a list of the destinations as well as the routes being served by this company, which is already operating on nearly 8% of the bus routes in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, as well as parts of Luzon.
  [Table 9: List of Routes Serviced by Vallacar Transit]
  Within its Bacolod (Negros) transport hub alone, the Ceres Liner services the following destinations from Bacolod: Escalante, Minapasok, Dumaguete, Kabankalan, San Carlos via Cadiz, San Carlos via Don Salvador Benedicto, Hinoba-an, Candoni, Culipapa, Canlaon via San Carlo, Cadiz, Binalbagan, and Fabrica.
  The company is continuously exploiting new opportunities due to the expansion of the Ro-Ro network. For example, because of the opening of Ro-Ro routes linking Bacolod and Negros Occidental to Cebu (Escalante–Tabuelan and San Carlos–Toledo routes) and to Mindanao (via Damaguete–Dapitan link), Ceres' buses now service Cebu City and Zamboanga City. In 2008, the bus company extended operations from Cebu to the Samar-Leyte region, because of the available Ro-Ro links on the Tacloban (Leyte)–Cebu and San Isidro–Cebu Ro-Ro routes. In 2008, Ceres Liner pioneered inter-modal transport service (i.e., via land and Ro-Ro transport) from Cubao in Quezon City all the way to Zamboanga City using the Western Nautical Highway.
  I also used this source for the parent company, Vallacar Transit (VTI), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vallacar Transit (VTI).
Cunard (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katarrama[edit]

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

20 references, none of which are reliable, no coverage in reliable sources or notable releases, absolutely fails WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the refs are track listings and similar, google showing not much, nobody watching on youtube, ~ 2 views per day. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy -- no clear evidence of notability. Mostly blogs and other non-WP:RS. If any true WP:RS can be found, ping me. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmixer.IO[edit]

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

this is a defunct site that seems to lack notability (perhaps better as a part of the cryptocurrency tumbler general article) Nanite (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, shortlived and dead. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charoensri F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not meet topic specific guidelines WP:FOOTYN. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Champions (representing Udon Thani) of the Thailand Prime Minister Cup (a junior and general public competition) in 2016 and 2018.[21] Couldn't identify any in-depth coverage of the team itself though. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick look on trying to find the team and it fails WP:GNG as the only sources I could find was Youtube and Facebook sources which doesn't relate to anything that is needed here. Not Homura (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussion regarding the article, a possible title change and its content can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Evaluation Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation with a notable product Measures of Academic Progress which doesn't (yet) have an article. Sourced only by its own website. A Google search is only returning business listings, social media, and its own website. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also the creator of the article did not follow the standard AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a little confused here. Cabayi, you're saying their main product, MAP, is notable - a statement I would definitely agree with. NWEA-MAP is a giant in the K-12 testing space, and plenty of writing has been done on it. It's pretty common for individual products to be merged with their companies, especially when there's not an article on the individual product. There's plenty of coverage of MAP, like this extensive Department of Education report, multiple academic publications studying the reliability and validity and effectiveness of interventions based on it ([22][23] [24] [25][26]) or news coverage of the controversy surrounding some of the tests and their implementation and the like ([27][28][29])[30][31]). I think one could argue for inclusion based on a few sources focused on NWEA in general or the non-MAP parts ([32][33]), but while I know notability is not inherited, in the absence of a MAP-specific article, I don't see the problem in keeping the parent company article. I may be misunderstanding though. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a product is well-known but the company doesn't receive any attention of its own, then the company should be covered in an article on the product, not the other way around. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I wouldn't oppose a move to NWEA MAP, MAP assessment, MAP (assessment) or any similar kind of title (including those with the abbreviations spelled out). I think I had more in mind when a company is indistinguishable from the signature product it produces, which admittedly may not be case here. In any event, I think deletion would be inappropriate here. MarginalCost (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What I wrote just above notwithstanding, I find a great deal of coverage via Google News attributing substantial significance to the Northwest Evaluation Association as a provider of assessments and tests. This, despite one source that says "Northwest Evaluation Association is not well-known in Portland, even though it develops and administers tests for 10 million students a year." Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Shapiro[edit]

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

Looking at the cited sources and online, not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Neither of the books "24/7 Innovation" nor "Goal-Free Living" seem to have significant reviews. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not easy to search for. There seem to be several notable people called Stephen Shapiro (with or without a middle name). I don't know what the "M" in Stephen M Shapiro stands for. GScholar citations for Stephen M Shapiro: [34]. The book "24/7 Innovation" by this author is highly cited with 183 cites. There are some other highly cited works there with 100+ cites, especially the Supreme Court Practice of Stern, Gressman, Shapiro and Geller, and the spectrometry papers, but they might by someone else, judging by their dates and content. James500 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROMO sourced to Amazon.com, Keynotespeakers.com and similar. To check notability, I searched the book titles. 24/7 Innovation: A Blueprint for Surviving and Thriving in an Age of Change got a suspiciously glowing writeup in the Appleton, Wisconsin newspaper The Post-Crescent [35], not a book review just a promo paean. The book did get him quoted in the New York Times Ways to Move Up When the Economy Moves Down, Alexander, Karen. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]18 Aug 2002: 3.9. [ https://search.proquest.com/news/docview/432157965/fulltext/E72C7F21C7C2423FPQ/9?accountid=10226 "Stephen M. Shapiro, author of 24/7 Innovation: A Blueprint for Surviving and Thriving in an Age of Change (McGraw-Hill, 2001), said that workers looking to move ahead should try to differentiate themselves, making sure that those in the position to promote take notice. Sometimes, he added, that may mean taking on new responsibilities without any immediate financial reward. 'You don't want to become a noisemaker for the sake of doing it, he said, but you do want to look for ways that you can make a difference in the company that no one else is doing.'"]. His next book Goal Free Living: How to Have the Life You Want Now, got him quoted in articles like, "Trends show fewer make resolutions: So, say some authors, just enjoy the new year," Meehan, Mary. Edmonton Journal; Edmonton, Alta. [Edmonton, Alta]30 Dec 2005: C5. " Resolutions are "one of the nation's most masochistic traditions," according to Stephen Shapiro, an author who recently released a survey on the topic. People set themselves up for failure by leaping into an often- drastic life change without a plan on how to execute it, said Shapiro. It's not that the Boston-based author is against improving your life -- after all, he's written the how-to book Goal Free Living: How to Have the Life You Want Now." I am not persuaded that he's notable, but the article is a blatant ADVERT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no relevant significant references. The isolated quotes aren ot sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, promo. Based on passing mentions, plain listings, related websites and dead links. The Banner talk 10:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article appears to have been created by synthesizing tiny snippets and mentions. Look for example at this reference, which links to a list of reccommended books by CEPAG. This is typical of the quality of the references. At minimum it needs TNT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of in depth coverage. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons given by BillHPike. I've tried going through the citations and can't find any notable secondary sources. Pjposullivan (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Red Velvet (band). Sandstein 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Velvet concert tours[edit]

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

Per WP:NTOUR a tour must have "received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" as an event in its own right. That is not the case with the individual tours in this list or as a group. Most of the sources used are merely promotional announcements for an upcoming tour or basic schedules. The source currently at footnote #1 is about one particular show that got press coverage, and that can be described as a historical event at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comment. It is a list. LISTN applies not NTOUR. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTA. Simply mentioning a guideline is meaningless without describing how exactly it helps the article under discussion. Per the cited WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables" and "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." (Emphasis in original.) I can find no evidence of notability from independent sources for this list of tours as a group, as said in the guideline that you dropped. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NTOUR, not particularly clear how it meets WP:LISTN either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Red Velvet (band). While this could be viewed as a valid WP:SPINOUT from the main article, merging to the main article will make it more comprehensive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:CSC bullet point 2. Szzuk (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite some questionable "keep" opinions, the support for deletion is just not there. Sandstein 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Baba Khan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Being a singer is not in itself grounds for notability, so the question is whether there are multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the person in depth.. I ran quick Google search and found this and this. (both cited in the article)

Both news stories contains namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. Saqib (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not enough coverage in multiple reliable references. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DBigXray. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has lot of coverage in Urdu and Pashto languages as he itself a Pashto language singer. like some reliable sources from Radio Mashaal: 1, 2, 3 and 4, from RadioBuner this from Dhanak London this, from Daily Jang this and this, this and many others. علی بابا خان Google Urdu/Pashto Search Ainty Painty (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mashaal Radio links (1, 2, 3, and 4) are not opening for me. Rest of the sources are not even reliable enough to support claims within an article, let alone to establish WP:N. Jang is a RS but it does not discusses the subject in detail. Also there's no point in posting links to Google search results -> WP:GHITS. --Saqib (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With reliable sources like (DAWN, Jang, The Express Tribune, Radio Mashaal and The Frontier Post etc ) the subject have also a lot of other sources too. But the others sources doesn't mean that they are valueless, it also make some sense. Na Maloom Fard (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Na Maloom Fard (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

You need to provide links to coverage. Saqib (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources :1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Na Maloom Fard (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source is a RS. You above claimed that subject has received coverage in Dawn, The Express Tribune etc. Saqib (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just mentioned these because as I told the subject besides having RS also having other sources which also make some sense. Here are RS: The Express Tribune, DAWN, The Frontier Post and Daily Jang Na Maloom Fard (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These news stories contains namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Saqib (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator and next editor, the sources are not independent. The coverage consists largely of vanity hits, which anyone can facilitate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination, and Robert above this comment. I couldnt find significant coverage for the subject. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a real hero of pashto language, he introduce trance music in pashto, also modern sofism in pashto, Tribute to his great work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.8.242 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — 39.60.8.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The sources provided is reliable. He is the first sufi rock singer of pashtoons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.64 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.9.64 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
keep Ali Baba Khan is the best singer of kpk. He introduce Sufi rock music in pashto music industry.N], The Frontier Post and Daily Jang shows that he is the first artist to tribute to Rahman Baba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.113 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.9.113 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
Keep With reliable sources like (DAWN, Jang, The Express Tribune, Radio Mashaal and The Frontier Post etc ) I have seen these sources to make me sure that its a relaible sources .Yes Ali Baba Khan is a sufi singer of pashtoons.I love his songs Dozakhi and janat hoora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.107 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — 103.255.6.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV due to detailed coverage in independent major Pakistani print media such as The Express Tribune, DAWN, The Frontier Post and Daily Jang as linked above by Na Maloom Fard. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments above pertaining to the coverage you provided. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep This sources given below shows its relaible.He tribute Rehman Baba by the name of titled Malang Abdur Rehman. He is a Sufi Singer of pashto music.this and this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.61 (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.9.61 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
keep this the source provided is a genuine and reliable.Pashto Sufi singer Ali Baba Khan released his video titled ‘Malang Abdur Rahman’ to pay tribute to legendary 17th Sufi poet Rahman Baba.Ali Baba Khan is a genuine Artist singer of kpk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.11.24 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.11.24 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we can get some non-sock input so we can make an informed decision on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Dawn source looks convincing. Can't say anything about the other sources as I haven't looked them into much detail yet. Mar4d (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Vaartha[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NMEDIA. Google searches appear to only result in news articles from this organization and a few books that discuss writers from this organization. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act[edit]

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

Fails WP:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information, and the History section contains plenty of that) as there are no other contributions, except a couple of sentences. wumbolo ^^^ 15:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:G5 requires "no substantial edits by others". Substantial edits have been made by other editors, so WP:G5 does not apply. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Bakazaka. Seems like an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Yes, unfortunately seems was created by a sockpuppet but (at a glance) article content seems to withstood scrutiny of various editors so reasonable for it to stand, and its removal would almost seem like an act of censorship. Article removal (and no doubt reasonable) recreation would also risk copyright non attribution claims arising due to copies no doubt present on other sites.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would also reject G% as there have been several substantial edits by others. The content is fine, it's well sourced etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Cyp, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Egypt Cup qualifying rounds[edit]

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

Even though I created this article, I think that it should be deleted now because I literally couldn't find any sources to confirm anything; and because of that the article is incomplete. Ben5218 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 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 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe even speedy, unreferenced and requested by the creator of the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete G7 applies and tagged G7 Hhkohh (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Hhkohh. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Watts[edit]

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

Fails WP:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing political biographies) as there are no other contributions, except reverted edits by single-purpose accounts. wumbolo ^^^ 15:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is unfair to say that Sagecandor was the only contributor. He created the article but there have been several other contributors since then. Passes GNG for what it's worth (although I don't think that's what is at issue here). ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created by a sock puppet of a banned (but not blocked) user. It is unclear what "substantial edits by others" means in G5, which is the sole reason given for deleting the article. According to the edit counter 27 other non-bot editors are responsible for about 15% of the content of the article but edits or text. I'm willing to be swayed by arguments about what is a substantial amount of edits, but given that the editor in question was not blocked, I'm inclined to save the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I have the WhoColor extension on my Google Chrome browser, and Sagecandor created 100% of the article. wumbolo ^^^ 07:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. He removed a "Controversy" section as "BLP violation and Synth" - this may have been the primary contribution by others. Your own contribution appears to be the banner at the top. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TrumpiLeaks[edit]

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

Fails WP:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information, in this case Trump) as there are no other contributions, except technical fixes. wumbolo ^^^ 15:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's over a year of many editors in the history. Widefox; talk 15:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say WP:A11 would be applicable here, but since it's already at AfD and has a lot of editors, I'll just have to go with this failing WP:GNG and violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on a nearly dead website. It never took off. From the initial flurry of very limited attention, it fizzled out. There was no "there" there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If It Ain't Got That Swing[edit]

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

Fails WP:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information) as there are no other contributions, except technical fixes. wumbolo ^^^ 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG with abundant coverage in reliable sources. This article really isn't about politics anyway, so it wasn't even created in violation of the ban. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book documents the author's shift from liberalism to support of right-wing politics. How is it not about politics? wumbolo ^^^ 15:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about one author's opinion. He is not a well-known commentator nor a key figure in politics. It's a bit of a stretch. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editor whose signature reads "EDDY" and per the argument advanced in this edit. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. James500 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the article met the G5 CSD, it would have been tagged with {{db-g5}} and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Otherwise, the article has no obvious causes for deletion, nor has the nominator provided one. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. If G5 is borderline, we don't tag it. I provided a perfectly valid cause for deletion, and nominated it here because it's not exactly clear. If I tagged it with G5, admins would hate me for not being careful, and now that I am being careful, people like you vote keep just for the sake of it. wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "borderline": either a banned editor created the page, or they didn't. I can't imagine anyone hating you for any legitimate editing, but it's your prerogative. As for vot[ing] keep just for the sake of it: (a) please assume good faith on the part of other editors, and (b) this is a discussion, not a vote. Aside from a G5-CSD with which you're afraid to tag the article, do you have any arguments for its deletion? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trolling. I have tried tagging for speedy deletion, but that ended up with me (and sometimes other editors) being harassed by the banned users. Now I can't even go to AfD without being criticized for going to AfD. Next time, I will tag with G5, and go to ANI if it's contested. Consider this my last reply to this thread. wumbolo ^^^ 15:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to Wumbolo (talk · contribs) here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because as state above "Clearly passes GNG with abundant coverage in reliable sources."Vmavanti (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy NUKE -- we should not encourage sockpupetteers work in any way. If the subject is notable, please rewrite from scratch. We must erase sockmasters from out memory/history.Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should we make an exception when the edits are clearly beneficial. I mean, Cirt wasn't blocked when he created the alt account, so he wan't evading a block. He was TBANned on politics pages, which was probably the impetus for the block, but as I've mentioned earlier, this article is only tangentially related to politics. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't make an exception to such a critical policy like G5. The work of socks is never welcome. wumbolo ^^^ 10:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film Critics Guild[edit]

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

An organisation that was formed today. The 2 sources look like rewritten press releases with phrases such as "The Film Critics Guild (FCG) will, over time, create a platform where the best Indian movies — short, feature and documentaries — can be honoured and celebrated." and "To elevate the standard of films and filmmaking in India and to create an unbiased platform to recognize and award deserving films from all over the country, renowned and celebrated critics...". Fails WP:NORG notable WP:ORGDEPTH as this is incidental coverage. This is WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTNEWS no clarity on why this org will be notable in the near future. the coverage is only for its inauguration and lacks depth needed to keep. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per way WP:TOOSOON. Should it ever become notable a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Droid (Star Wars). As it's now called. Content can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle droid[edit]

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

Non-secondary-sourced fancruft that fails WP:GNG. As a piece of fictional minutia, it is not notable enough to merit its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Droid (robot). There's good information here, but it can be moved there and sourced properly. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The notability guideline requires reliable, independent sources, for which this article has one. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Droid (robot). Much of this content is more suited for Wikia, but some of it is definitely salvageable. Although battle droids are certainly a notable aspect of Star Wars, there's just not enough real world information to quite justify extended coverage through a separate article.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Droid (robot) as above, as a valid option rather than deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a fine article with nothing wrong with it. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid, the 2008 deletion request (please read the comments there). Deletion is not the way to go with pages like this, or even merged to another. A stand-alone page for this topic does no harm and does much good for readers who happen to be looking for it or run across it. Can we close down AfD for a month (or two) for repairs? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could always work on your proposed version in draft.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 23:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure these improvements couldn't be added to Droid (Star Wars) instead? It is very dubious that this topic would merit a completely separate article, especially given the lack of reliable sourcing in this one. Also, Wikipedia standards have changed greatly since 2008 and fancruft is much less tolerated than it was then. I've nominated many crufty articles for deletion that had a circa-2008 discussion that went nowhere._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This RfD was put up on October 3, but had not been listed on the WikiProject: Star Wars talk page, which I did earlier. And were the editors who participated in the first RfD in 2008 notified? Maybe some of them are still around. Aren't these steps normal or requested in RfD's? Seems a minimum to do for an long-time article which survived a well-debated RfD (please read the discussion, linked above, for more in-depth 'Keep' viewpoints). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it's just the creator and the relevant WikiProject's that get notified, both from my experience and what I've observed.—Mythdon 02:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, and the Star Wars wikiproject was not notified, I would think the clock should be started over and this request relisted. This discussion contains nothing like the key arguments put forward by the 'Keepers' in 2008, a discussion which probably should be seen as precedent in this case and required reading for anyone wanting to see both sides here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be up to the discretion of the one closing this discussion. Just because there were arguments for keep then doesn't mean anything since Wikipedia standards change over 10 years, as do issues concerning the article. Also keep in mind the last discussion was closed as no consensus. Those only default to keep because there isn't a clear consensus to delete/merge/whatever, not because they have good keep arguments. Articles can and have been renominated for deletion simply because of "no consensus" at the first AFD. There has to have been improvement since the previous AFD if you want to avoid a delete or merge outcome.—Mythdon 03:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being pedantic, but this is an AFD, not an RFD; are you sure you're talking about the correct discussion? — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werd (SOS)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Overflowing with references (nearly a hundred of them), but almost none of them stand up to scrutiny. Most are links to Bandcamp, iTunes and other sites where you can download Werd's mixtapes and music, or links to blogs (half of which are dead), or the general home pages of organisations with whom Werd has allegedly worked. The best sources for notability are those linked with various BBC music stations, but unfortunately most are for radio shows for which there is no archive, and in any case only demonstrate that Werd was played maybe once or twice, not that his music was placed on rotation, as required by WP:NMUSIC. His appearance in the Charlie Sloth documentary The UK State of Rhyme is limited to an introduction at 30:30 as part of a group of Scottish rappers, and ten seconds of him at 37:30 performing on stage at the Edinburgh Festival. There is also another performance of him on YouTube (citation no. 20) at the Edinburgh Fringe, but none of this provides any biographical or discography detail, and as anyone familiar with the Edinburgh Festival will know, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of performers each year, and few of them are notable simply for performing there. The Scottish New Music Awards don't appear to be notable, nor are the other awards he was nominated for. The guy is talented, no doubt, but I don't see anything that passes the notability standards for a Wikipedia article, and maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If Mark Rankin can have an entry ... this nomination has a whiff of new-establishment bias about it, no more progressive than the Elgar/Vaughan Williams bias of the old print encyclopaedias that Wiki has supplanted. RobinCarmody (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without explaining what notability guidelines this article passes. And the Mark Rankin article like like it should be AfD'd as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I'm glad you think it does (I'd never seen it until trying to find a comparison point), but why has nobody done it? It couldn't be because that article fits within the racist and classist post-Blair new-establishment bias Wikipedia is riddled with and this article doesn't, could it? Singling out this article seems highly suspicious to me, and typical of the limits of liberalism. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5,721,394 articles on the English Wikipedia – it's very likely that many of the non-notable creations lie undiscovered for years until someone comes across them. You say yourself that you found the Mark Rankin article accidentally: I found this one accidentally as well while I was carrying out some disambiguations. So please assume some good faith and don't accuse me of deliberate targetting – I have no interest at all in bringing politics, race or class into any Wikipedia discussion, I simply evaluated this article based on whether it passes WP:GNG, and I believe it doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe move to draft - Reads like promotion. "some of Scotland's top producers and artists in the genre", "eye-catching artwork", "full backing band that includes some of UK's best known professional musicians", the entire Website / Magazine Quotes section. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete between the deadlinks and attempts to download software, I'm done with trying to check these sources after the first few. WP:CITEBOMBing isn't useful. If the creator wants to point me to actual reliable sources with substantial discussion of the subject I might reconsider, but right now this is failing WP:N and WP:PROMOTION. SpinningSpark 19:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all 99 references Spinningspark - I'll help you out here, nos. 16 and 20 are about the only ones that aren't dead and/or spam, and with no. 16 you'll have to fast forward to about 30 minutes into the video. But honestly, I don't see anything that passes WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "the racist and classist post-Blair new-establishment bias". He he, very funny. Whackjob conspiracy theories aside there is nothing here that makes him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sajid[edit]

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

No claim of notablity, fails WP:BLPCRIME and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep google turns up several articles in decent news sources. Seem to be focused on one video ISIS put out, but editors shouldn't be fooled by the current state of the article, I'd link that policy that says "don't delete stuff if the article could be better", but I can't remember what it's called. May also have been involved in some well covered anti-islamist police raid in India? More notable that it seems, possibly unclearly due to use of pseudonym. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep plenty of reliable sources found. Article state should not be counted in, just need work. BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Bada Sajid. Note that BEFOREing for "Mohammed Sajid" leads one to other terrorists (including on in the UK), a Moroccan minister (who would pass NPOL), and a Pakistni cricketer (Mohammad Sajid - and a/e spelling for Mohammed.... is far from consistent) - I was not convinced searching under this name. However, searching for "Bada Sajid" (the alias, more commonly used) garners coverage lasting over a decade to the Batla House encounter case, including coverage of Sajid's later exploits in Syria. Merging to the 2008 event is probably not a good idea as the later Syria activities are very loosely connected. Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bada Sajid search bar: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources, per google search results which could be used for expansion once the article is kept. perhaps renaming the article per above is a good thing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rename to Bada Sajid, per sources found above by User:Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the criteria for perpetrators under WP:CRIME. Most of the coverage is trivial. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wat Suthiwararam Alumni F.C.[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN is not met so unlikely to be more sources out there. According to the talk page a Thai reader says the sources do not concern the subject but a school team. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Participated in the 2009[36] and 2010[37] FA Cup. Not sure why the article states it was founded in 2014, which seems obviously incorrect. Couldn't identify in-depth coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a clear delete to me. English search results return nothing more than mirrors of this page, and WP:FOOTYN seems pretty clear on the notability of this one. tonyxc600 comms logs 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paul 012 If they were founded in 2014, it can't be the same team that competed in the 2009 & 2010 cup competitions. Therefore, they don't meet the standard of WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tending to think it's the same team, and that the article is incorrect. Hard to say though, since there's hardly any coverage at all (so probably fails the GNG). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film Investors Netherlands[edit]

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

No working references. May not exist. No real claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did find some initial coverage concerning this scheme: a discussion of its potential "Film Krant", May 1998 and EU Commission approval for this state support later the same year (added as a reference in the article). It appears to have been a limited-funding, limited-term initiative, but my searches are not finding any substantial evaluation or coverage beyond that initial start-up coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crombie Jardine[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ORG Mccapra (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Mjm100, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that, add some reliable sources and it may have a chance of not being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:A7. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy deletion was declined. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources in the article or online elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonore Lemmon[edit]

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

Noted only for being George Reeves' fiancee. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTINHERITED. GenuineArt (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the fiancee of a notable actor does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiyantriki[edit]

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

Despite the appearance of sourcing, this doesn't pass the GNG--the references are blog posts and various associated websites. Plus, it's really just promotional. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies and now college has a annual technical festival it can be mentioned the college article and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 (1971 film)[edit]

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

Very short article, last human edit was 7 years ago. Only references provided are film databases, which isn't enough to establish notability - the IMDb listing doesn't have any external reviews or links either. – numbermaniac 06:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 06:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added as source a registry published by the Norwegian Film Institute. Should confirm the existence, although the article is still very short. GAD (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a very short article (only two sentences long) with only one reference, and the external links include a link to the Internet Movie Database. Wikipedia is not meant to be the Internet Movie Database. Vorbee (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel that the article does not satisty the reliable source criteriaWP:NFSOURCES and does not satisfy the credible film criteria ofWP:NFO. The article has just two line and has not proper plot of the film.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center#Four Diamonds. Clear consensus to delete and redirect -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon[edit]

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

We have just deleted & redirected the Four Diamonds Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund. This is the article on its annual fund-raising event. The extraordinary detail makes it clear that the intent is promotional. The references are local, and the event is non notable..

See also the adjacent AfD for the AfD on an even less notable related organization. The contents are very similar. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an annual event that raises $10 million per year is likely to be notable. This appears to get coverage from media across Pennsylvania and not just in the State College, Pennsylvania area; [38] [39]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the appropriate part of the material is already included in the main article. A redirect would make sense. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect charity fundraisers are pretty much routine on any large college campus. Like 1 per weekend per campus. Media coverage is basically routine and not independent. This one is big - if there is any independent source for saying it's the biggest, I missed it. All the refs look mildly promotional and non-independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional; as DGG writes this kind of detail can't be anything else; no objection to a non-spam recreation. Sandstein 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and lacking any good sources to establish WP:N. All the sources in the article are first-party or local to the school. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Poo (radio series)[edit]

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

A feature on a radio show is not notable enough for its own article, in this case and in my opinion. At best, we have material that could possibly be merged into the presenter's article, but certainly not notable to stand on its own. Strikerforce^Talk 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. It's hard to provide too many sources immediately as magazines like Ram & Juke are not yet available online. The Sydney Morning Herald link is fantastic and this interview in Roadrunner [40] is good. Both are indicative of other offline sources. There are quite a few articles in the SMH archives.[41] Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any requirement that our sources be online. If you or somebody else are able to dig into print copies of those other sources, then bring 'em on. We provide convenience URLs to web copies of the source if such exist, but that's not a core requirement of a usable reference — we are allowed to do no-url citations to unwebbed book or newspaper or magazine content. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient WP:NEXIST it seems to support GNG. Reliant on hardcopy material - perhaps limited WP:BEFORE. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete based only on the current sourcing of the article and internet searches for WP:BEFORE. I'm not disputing WP:NEXIST in offline sources, such as here: [42] but I haven't found enough to convince myself it passes WP:GNG even with offline sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. As member of the Dr Poo fan club (I still have the badge) I would value keeping the article, as very little now remains of the show unfortunately.

Unfortunately, that's not a valid rationale per Wikipedia guidelines. Do you have anything based in policy to support your !vote, please? Strikerforce^Talk 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to help create the media presence of a thing that "very little now remains of", by waiving our reliable source requirements so that people can publish their own original research and possibly faulty memories. If you want to make a fansite for it, then by all means get a Wix. But if "very little remains of it" in reliable sources, then we're not the place to rebuild its public profile. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. While this discussion is relatively lengthy, it is only between two users, hence the WP:NPASR option. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five or Six[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Pillows & Prayers, per WP:MUSICBIO item 10. Non-notable defunct band. I can find no discussion of this band in any reliable sources. Just some discography listings in the usual places. Amsgearing (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several reviews of their recent compilation on reliable sources (ex. Record Collector Magazine, AllMusic), featured on a record that sold 120,000 copies. Probably a lot more in print media from when they were active, given that they were signed to one of the biggest UK indie labels.

Also a comment, you removed the liner notes reference with the comment "that is not a source" from the article — mind explaining the existence of Template:Cite AV media notes? I've restored the reference. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting back liner notes is fine, but they're not an indicator of notability. Also, if these two paragraphs (which are barely reviews - they're just blurbs about a greatest hits CD) are the only things available as sources, I'd say that's far, far short of "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Amsgearing (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, why did you remove them in the first place? They're a perfectly fine primary source.

A review is "non-trivial" by definition — it only covers the band in question. Either way, there's three other points in WP:MUSICBIO they fall under.

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

6. "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. ..."

10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. ..." RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely do not fall under any of those three points.

5. A Thriving And Happy Land was released by "Frizz Bee" records. That's not an important indie label. The only other release was on Edigsa records. Same problem.

6. None of the band members are independently notable musicians. One of them is now a (barely) notable TV executive. That's not a musician.

10. They were not included on a notable compilation album. The album Pillows & Prayers seems like it's a candidate for deletion itself, and the one source referenced in that article doesn't even mention the band Five or Six. Regardless, you skipped the part that states "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article."

In other words, you've laid out a pretty good case for why this article should be deleted, as they don't meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Amsgearing (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Heel Jack is absolutely a notable musical ensemble. Edigsa seems to be a fairly notable label in their region too, having artists like Joan Manuel Serrat signed. Pillows & Prayers is incredible influential, it's the #1 indie pop compilation album of all time according to Mojo. (source)

If you put all of the things I mentioned together, you get a decent case for notability. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source that states members of Five or Six were in "a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" ? Because Spring Heel Jack sounds like one band to me, which means #6 is still not met. Amsgearing (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Trams Station[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It was a tiny shop-sized "museum" in a shopping mall. For failing WP:GNG, on Apple Daily (this link), famous for tabloid journalism and paid reporting on shops, had an article half on the interview of the founder, and some routine and rephrasing on the founder's introduction on those tiny collections, which were routine coverage. Another article of the same newspaper, was an interview of the mother of the founder of the museum, yet with routine coverage on the museum.

Moreover, the current English version of the article looks like speedy G11 material.

While on Chinese version, this link (Oriental Daily) was about the tram, and one sentence routine coverage about the museum. While this link (Sing Tao Daily) was also one paragraph routine coverage about the museum and the rest were about the tram. Matthew_hk t c 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong_Kong_Trams_Station[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of independent sources have been added to the article to establish notability and squash this deletion proposal (finding ways to keep content is much more fun than making hasty proposals to delete content). It was a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, however, as I discovered that the museum closed less than a month ago. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 06:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independent, but fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Hong Kong 01 is a web newspaper, using it as a citation for routine fact is not a problem, but for establishing the most strict "reliable source" requirement, i am not sure . Also the two articles were interview of the founder and no support of private museums by the government respectively. And it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage Matthew_hk t c 10:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i would say almost every single Chinese cafe, noodle restaurant, etc. in Hong Kong, had news cutting on display in their shop front. They got even more attention when they are forced to close down due to not affordable rent by "Real Estate Hegemony" which fuels the tabloid journalism on how they found the shop. But end up they are all routine, trivial founding stories that looks the same, only differ in very specific detail. The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) was meant to be a bar for flooding such shops with routine coverage. Matthew_hk t c 10:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it is in fact notable is because it was NOT your average shop front; it was a small museum dedicated to the history of the Hong Kong Tramways. Also, the web newspaper links are interviews of the founder, but they are interviews regarding the museum specifically, and other aspects besides the closure are discussed. Of course, a web newspaper is indeed not as good as, say, a book on the topic, but this is not a featured article nomination; it's a discussion of whether the article meets the bare minimum criteria to not be deleted, and I feel that with the recent changes that you and I made, it passes. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 11:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All i could said interview did not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And from his mouth or his mum, the story of how he became a die hard fans and then founded a museum (or actually a for profit shop) is not notable. There is no independent review or article about his collection, or presumably not notable to have someone to write a serious review on it. Matthew_hk t c 22:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're repeating the same points, I'll repeat that it was a museum, as it had historical items on display, and almost every museum sells merchandise, so the related point you made is moot. It sounds like your grievances are related exclusively to the Mandarin language version of the article, because those sources you linked above are in the Mandarin version, but not the English version. The English one, however, has two independent articles (here: [43] and here: [44]) that talk about the museum at length. They are from the same publisher and present similar information, but having both is necessary because one mentions the September lease expiration date, but not the August closure date, and vice-versa. The presence of these third-party sources establishes notability, which makes the effort to have this article deleted dead-in-the-water. I should also bring up the following observation: through my interactions with people who seem to be from Hong Kong, or have some sort of real-life connection to it, they all seem to resent their own tourism industry, despite the fact that it's a major pillar of their economy. This translates into the absurd idea that any subjects here related to Hong Kong history and tourism should somehow be mutually exclusive. This is of course impossible, because there are many instances (such as this one) where those two areas overlap. My point is the nominator of this AfD appears to have a negative bias on the subject, and hence his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 01:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HK 01 was discredited as reliable source by newspaper of Hong Kong and it seem you have COI or personal tie to the museum and/or tram instead, which complete ignoring all the points of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a place of advisement of a tiny shop with a gimmick of museum. Matthew_hk t c 01:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a survey [45] of the "truthfulness" of media, interviewing 907 individuals, HK 01 was ranked 4.87 out of 10 scores. At least Apple Daily that famous for tabloid journalism and paid reporting on shops, had a score of 5.18 while Oriental Daily 5.59, Sing Tao 5.99 Matthew_hk t c 01:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have never set foot in Hong Kong and have no ties whatsoever to the museum. Even if I did have a tie to the museum, why would I be motivated to edit an article about it given that it's no longer in business? Perhaps it is you that has a COI or some sort of personal grudge against the museum or the organization that ran it. Also, the only place where I see HK01 mentioned in that link is in the comments, and not the article itself. That's yet another point of yours that has been shot down. Yes, the museum was small, and yes, it was in a shopping mall, but that's irrelevant because museums are allowed to be small and in shopping malls. Given that your arguments are centered on those aspects, they are weak at best, and definitely not enough to support this deletion. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 01:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Restating deletion rationale: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), no non-interview, non-primary, secondary reliable source for the guideline. None of any provided source pass Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary.

HK01 is unreliable secondary source with more than half content is interview, which interview of the founder itself is not independent from the museum. Matthew_hk t c 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted that wp:notability link six times so far; your chances of getting what you want are not going to increase the more you post it. Also, the idea that HK01 is unreliable is not substantiated and is only your personal opinion. Regardless, at best the decision for this AfD is going to be no consensus if it's only going to be you and me bickering back and forth. So, I will ping a few other editors (@ASDFGH:, @Citobun:, @Davidng913:) so we can get this resolved. All of those editors made an edit to the Hong Kong Tramways article within the past year. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, HK01 scoring (4.x) in that survey, which less than almost all traditional paper media/newspaper (Ming Pao that reporting the survey by an independent org, School of Journalism and Communication of CUHK, had a score of 6.x), only better than Communist owned Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po (which had very very few circulation), as well as other media reporting that they made hoax political news coverage, it was still reliable? And it still dodge of the criteria "Significant, Independent" Matthew_hk t c 02:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 02:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements: "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization". None of the "non-routine" article coverage of the "museum" on newspaper was free of interview and free from alternative advertising. Matthew_hk t c 03:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is directly related to the discussion, I am informing anyone reading this that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened about Matthew hk here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew hk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdude101 (talk • contribs) 2018-09-28T03:05:28 (UTC)

Hello, all. Everybody should be aware that sock-puppetry and conflict-of-interest is not germane to whether this place deserves a Wikipedia article or not. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just a supplement to his dodge to guideline, criteria and evidence. Matthew_hk t c 03:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's no dodging. I believe the HK01 sources are in fact valid. Furthermore, I would caution against domestic Chinese studies (within Hong Kong, as well) that grade Hong Kong news sites, given that the Chinese Communist Party tends to frown upon free speech, and such studies could have been done at their behest to discredit any organizations that have or could speak out against them. If you can supply a study created outside of Chinese-controlled territory that grades HK01, that would be more valuable. On a separate note, we haven't even discussed this other source in the English language article here: [46]. It's another interview of the museum's founder, but this one was done by HK Magazine, which at the time of its publication was a subsidiary of South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's newspaper of record. The museum is mentioned once at the top and at the bottom. That's not that much, but it's enough to confirm the museum's notability, and it's a little something extra to go along with the other sources. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 04:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The survey was carried by an independent depart of CUHK which in the past it had faced political pressure that the consequence was no one including head of CUHK can influence it at present. The survey may had bias due to sampling size (may be some people refuse to answer the survey, which this "refuse" may not be randomly distributed), but it was the most reliable survey in Hong Kong. For SCMP, all i could found that article is ANOTHER Interview which still fails the GNG and the specific companies and org guideline. Also, in my personal opinion, SCMP start to fail as this year promoting a nobody as the next Asian-American to be the next US President candidate. Since the acquisition by Alibaba Group in 2015, it seem a soft propaganda machine to me. Nevertheless, if you find any non-China politics article in SCMP, i would still consider them as reliable, as well as it still score 6.54 in that 2016 survey. But that article still did not fit the all four criteria Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary, which pass 2 to 3 criterion? Matthew_hk t c 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think three sources from three mainstream HK publishers over several years, even if the publications were motivated by active promotion on the museum's behalf, would push this over WP:GNG. Deryck C. 13:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See essay wp:ITSAMUSEUM which provides deep philosophical insights. I don't know where to draw the line for museums that are relatively small or relatively temporary, honestly, but I prefer to keep.--Doncram (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color of Love (film)[edit]

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

not notable at all Wikimostafa (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the director's article Ali Noori Oskouie as there is not enough coverage for a stand-alone article on this 4min film, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are many films called Color of Love, but this particular one doesn't meet GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination provides various rationales for deletion, also stating that the article is promotional, and the delete !vote following the nomination casually states that the subject fails "various" notability criteria, but doesn't state which ones or how so. The following keep !vote presents several sources that suggest WP:NAUTHOR may be met, but after two relistings, nobody else has offered any opinion about their veracity. Furthermore, the notion that the article is promotional was not concurred with by any other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Kaputa[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC (no more than 39 cites on Google Scholar for any of her stuff). Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails the various notabillty criteria.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than three thousand library holdings of her books: [47]. Publishers Weekly has a book review of The Female Brand [48] and other coverage [49][50] [51]. James500 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Systems theory. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence[edit]

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

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

An essay full of woolly original research by way of synthesis. (I noticed this during this old AfD and then forgot about it.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the nomination Interconnectivity, for the same reasons. An article by that name was deleted in 2013, and judging by the comments there, it seems to have suffered from the same problems as this one. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence seems to be a notable topic judging by the sources in GBooks, and the fact that mutual dependence is obviously a valid topic. Therefore the correct approach would appear to be to fix the article, if necessary by stubifying it, per WP:SOFIXIT and WP:ATD. No comment on Interconnectivity, except that we also have Interconnection, which is certainly a valid article. James500 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your WP:SOFIXIT and your WP:ATD and raise you WP:TNT. If I had thought fixing Interdependence was possible, I would have. Redirecting Interconnectivity to Interconnection would make sense. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Interdependence to Systems theory, where it is dicussed as a core concept of systems. This is a concept that has applications in many fields. Forming a WP:DABCONCEPT article could be one approach to handling this with a minimum of synthesis. Until that is created, (with appropriate sources), systems theory is already a fairly reasonable broad concept article that has discusses interdependence as a core feature of all systems and has a proper summary-style approach to most of the kinds of systems discussed in the interdependence article. Until a proper article can be re-created, I think the redirect would be the most helpful approach for readers trying to understand such a broad concept as interdependence. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein: Interdependence and Interconnectivity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are broad topics which naturally makes them difficult to do well but, per our editing policy, we should improve them rather than deleting them. They have massive notability as entire books are written about them. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Andrew's standard advocacy for original research by citing WP:BROAD aside, if he isn't personally going to fix the article, he shouldn't be allowed prevent others from doing so by the appropriate means for an article with nothing worth keeping as is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I remember the "interconnectedness" AfD, which I described at the time as unscientific woo-woo. This essay is full of similar woo-woo and original research, plus a lot of vacuous management jargon. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not pacify shareholders with verbose platitudes. This is a hopeless case. Reyk _YO! 09:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book in a Box[edit]

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

Cannot see how this book publisher can pass WP:NCORP. Founded in 2014, and employs 29 people. None of the cites amounts to much. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When we look a book publishers, we don't necessarily see them as corporations per WP:NCORP but have looked at the cultural impact of their work. /Julle (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No we don't - notability isn't inherited. Each book published by a book publisher may have a cultural impact but that is down to the contents of each book, it is not attributable to the publisher. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To say that a publisher would inherit notability from the books they publish, and that their work from a cultural aspect is irrelevant, is akin to saying that a writer is not notable because of notable books. A book is not something that comes in, gets clad in covers and walks out the door. A publisher forms and changes the books they publish. They decide on the norms of the cultural market. Much like a theatre troupe, which can also be a company, we have historically not judged merely for their financial success as corporations. This was, however, a side note; I have no opinion on whether it has any bearing on this publisher, which of course has to pass WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first glance this article appears to be sufficiently referenced but a closer look at each reference in the article reveals that not a single one meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most appear to rely on interviews/quotations with Tucker Max and are not intellectually independent and do not contain original and independent opinion or analysis. From WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Others I can locate such as podcasts or blogs are not regarded as reliable sources. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Strong promotional undertones with content such as "In August 2015, Max and Obront published a book, The Book in a Box Method...", failing WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Nevada (BB-36). Given that support for merge, delete and keep is about the same, we must conclude that there is consensus to not keep but also no consensus to delete. This leaves a merger as the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)[edit]

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

The consensus at wt:ships was to not have such lists and instead add notable COs to the article prose. The few notable COs on this page have already been added to the main article making this page needless and redundant. This page offers no other encyclopaedic content. - wolf 05:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added note:there is currently a consensus at wt:ships against the inclusion of "List(s) of COs" in ship articles, which would make merging a problem. This is why notable COs were added to the main articles's prose. fyi 18:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete as proposer, reasons above - wolf 18:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The commanders of this capital ship are naturally listed in detailed works about it such as USS Nevada, 1916-1946; Battle Born: The Unsinkable USS Nevada BB-36; The War Diaries of the U.S.S. Nevada; Silver State Dreadnought: The Remarkable Story of Battleship Nevada; &c. The nominator has added material from this to the main article, as noted in the nomination. If we prefer to have this information within the main article, that's reasonable, but we should keep this page for attribution per WP:MAD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no strong opinion on this, but keeping the page for attribution reasons is a silly argument. That does not require keeping the article. The page history can be preserved by blanking and redirecting, or moving it to a subpage of the battleship talk page and replacing the content with an explanation of why it is being kept. SpinningSpark 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My !vote allows for the possibility of merger. The point is that deletion is not appropriate – see WP:ATD-M. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (alternatively - merge to a section in USS Nevada (BB-36), with a redirect to that section). Project consensus does not override a notability guideline - in this case WP:LISTBIO. The list of Nevada commanders is obviously discussed as a set in sources. Furthermore, the individual on this list are notable per - WP:SOLDIER (the billet itself was Captain - a notch below flag SOLDIER(2), many were promoted in their next billet and regardless the ship itself was a capital ship SOLDIER(75)). While the local consensus might apply to smaller ships (the COs of which might not rise up to LISTBIO) - a 2,000 man ship weighing 30,000 tons is a different beast. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you must mean SOLDIER(5), not SOLDIER(7). None of them invented anything as far as I know. SpinningSpark 12:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct. Though some might have grounds for 8 or NAUTHOR. - e.g. Thomas P. Magruder ([52], who would meet SOLDIER(2) as a rear admiral regardless). Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Nevada (BB-36). Not a senior enough position to merit a separate article. Many of the individuals will have been notable for later promotions to flag rank, but the list itself is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changing to Keep - in light of Icewhiz's proof that many are notable, when there are this number it's better to have a separate article and link from the main rather than interrupt the flow of it's text with mentions. ~~The few who are notable have been included in the Nevada article.~~ WP:SOLDIER(5) states IN COMBAT, most of these are peacetime commanders Lyndaship (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Running down the list of full names in this source - rather clearly shows that a significant proportion of them are notable. Many do not have Wiki articles presently - but they would pass notability standards - either by dint of subsequent promotion to rear admiral (captains with a senior billet tend to go up another notch), or combat service on Nevada or a different capital ship. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: One thing to keep in mind is that far more Captains retire as Captain than are promoted to Rear Admiral (lower half). But that said, the five on this list notable enough for their own bio here, have already been added to the main article. How many, of the remaining 21 on the list, do you feel warrant notability? Were they in command of Nevada during combat? Were they otherwise part of a notable event that involved the ship? Were they promoted to flag rank? Of those that warrant it, why not add them to the main article's prose, in the appropriate chronological section of the history, with refs? Wouldn't that be more informative to the reader, as opposed to just dumping in list of names, with no context and no additional information about them? Not to mention that such a list would be in conflict with the current consensus at Project:Ships. - wolf 16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commanding a battleship was generally a senior billet for a Captain. Regardless, running down the list -
William S. Sims - notable.

Joseph Strauss (admiral) - notable

Andrew T. Long - made admiral[53] - notable.

William Carey Cole - notable.

Thomas P. Magruder - made admiral (and also wrote a book)[54] - notable.

William Dugald MacDougall - notable.

Luke McNamee - notable.

Douglas E. Dismukes - made admiral[55][56] - notable.

John McClane Luby - retired as a captain, however per his Navy Cross citation, he commanded the USS South Dakota (ACR-9) (a large armored cruiser) in WWI action - borderline for SOLDIER(5). First guy here that is possibly not notable.

David Wooster Todd - retired Captain,per his WWI navy cross citation on valor. He does have a fee book hits for his stint as Director of Naval Communications.

Clarence S. Kempff - made vice admiral,[57] notable.

Hilary Herbert Royall - seems to retired Captain,[58] possibly not notable.

John J. Hyland - has a notable admiral son with the same name (John Hyland), NOTINHERITED (but perhaps vindicating Davenport's thoughts on thallasophilia[59] - being silly). Seems he only made Captain and being a 1900 Annapolis grad probably retired prior to WWII - so probably not notable, but I might be mistaken due to his son's strong notability and presence in sourcing masking out results on him.

William S. Pye - notable.

Adolphus Staton - notable.

Robert L. Ghormley - notable.

Claude B. Mayo - retired Captain,[60] I think he served stateside during WWII. Probably not notable.

Robert Alfred Theobald - notable.

Francis W. Rockwell (admiral) - notable.

Francis .W. Scanland - in command during day of infamy - but was ashore, a lt. cmdr navigated the ship,[61] but he did return aboard on 0915 - 5 minutes after the ship was grounded.[62] served in the engagements of the Coral sea battle of Midway as commander of USS Astoria (CA-34). So - possible SOLDIER(5). It does seem he was awarded the Navy Cross, and that his son did too during WWII - making the two the only father-son duo with a navy cross in WWII.[63] It also seems he may have made commodore,[64] possibly meeting SOLDIER(2).

Henry L. Thompson - in command during refit of Nevada. Not sure - awful name for searching (a commodore by the same name commanded the Republic of Texas navy a hundred years prior, and lots of other notable individuals).

Howard F. Kingman - commanded Battleship Division 2 in operations meeting SOLDIER(5), made vice-admiral meeting SOLDIER(2).[65].

Willard A. Kitts, III - commanded Nevada in combat, meeting SOLDIER(5). Also made vice admiral, meeting SOLDIER(2).NYT obit

Powell M. Rhea - commanded Nevada in combat (e.g. D-Day), made admiral,[66] notable.

Homer L. Grosskopf - commanded Nevada in combat,[67] meeting SOLDIER(5), was one of Charles B. McVay III's judges, and seems to retired as admiral.[68][69]

Cecil C. Adell - commanded Nevada after the war (including being sunk as a nuclear bomb target) - which would not rise up to SOLDIER(5). His WWII activities (decorated as navigator of the sunk USS Chicago (CA-29), various stateside duties after injury recovery) do not seem to pass SOLDIER(5). He did retire as Task Force Commander, Key West Force - as a captain.[70] Is mentioned in a bunch of books - but probably not wiki notable.

So - 26 COs, 19 are clearly notable. Some of the 7 others are possibly notable as well. Nevada COs are discussed as a set (e.g. [71]) - clearly meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Whatever local consensus there is at project ships - it is trumped by a Wikipedia guideline. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: That is some good work you put in there. The number of notable COs now seems to surpass that on the List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37) (the only other stand-alone "List of COs" article). While that page had some effort put into it, this one seemed to have been abandoned after it was initially typed out (hence the lack of linked officers). But I don't see how this changes anything. There are now more officers to add to the main article, in prose, which will only serve to round it more. As for wp:listpeople, yes that is a guideline, but one on how lists should be created and maintained, it does not say "lists must be made instead of adding entrants into article prose". And a project consensus can certainly taken into account with the decision on what to do with this list. (Its not as if we can just ignore it). But anyway, like I said... good work. - wolf 21:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: JFTR, I'll add the other notable officers to the main article probably tomorrow (Sat at the latest), and with that done, there'll really be no need for this page. Thanks to Icewhiz's efforts, almost all the COs are notable and can be added to main page, so this list page will be redundant. - wolf 00:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although it is clear that the individuals commanders are notable I cant see any evidence that all of them are noteworthy to the ship. If any of them were involved in something noteworthy while in command then it would be in the narrative. Just being in command is itself not noteworthy. The list is saying that "Smith commanded the ship for a year and nothing happened but he later did some good but not related to the Nevada". MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTPEOPLE. Consensus at WP:SHIPS is not sufficient to delete articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to USS Nevada (BB-36). While the research preformed by Icewhiz is compelling, the statement by MilborneOne that the subjects may not necessarily be notable to the ship is also noteworthy. As such, merging comes across as the best means to handle this content, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW closure. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kachwaha Dynasty (Dhanchoha)[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. ∯WBG^converse 05:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very well charted family tree in a large image filling most of the article, however no sources for any of this nor does it seem this is notable (in this spelling at least) per my BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a personal genealogy and therefore fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and probably also WP:OR. We do have an article on the Kachwaha Rajput. However, the only leader mentioned by name is Bharmal who does not appear on the chart. I've tried searching on gbooks for the founder named on the chart, Darihal Singh, but turned up nothing. The chart gives no dates, so I disagree with "very well charted"; it is not possible to put those names in an historical context. SpinningSpark 09:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY and unsourced. unable to find sources either. Also agree with contributors above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous votes. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I raised concerns about this article at WT:INB. I cannot find any sources and it appears to be some sort of vanity project, perhaps by a member of the family who created the family tree image. They removed a CSD template soon after it was created but have never returned to Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's rather unfair to bring up that long irrelevant CSD. It was nominated as an A4 (no content) one hour after creation. The user, quite reasonably, removed the template when he added, well, content. SpinningSpark 16:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It clearly personal personal genealogy and therefore fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and probably also WP:OR.The geneology is also not of any relevance in Indian history and the only valid name is Rajput.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - fails V, searching for names on the tree I also failed to find anything encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in a hurry. "Rajput" itself is a dubious category: sometime in the early- or mid medieval age in western India some low-caste warrior tribes had sought higher caste status (Kshatriya) from the local rulers they had helped earlier. They were granted the status, and since then mythic histories have been made of them as Rajputs, not just in Rajasthan, where they went on to become rulers, but also in the rest of India, where anyone who is claiming that caste status also has a story of migration. This page is that kind of garbage. Speedy deletion. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximalist! (band)[edit]

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

Unedited and unsourced since 2009. Fails WP:NBAND. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - seems to be a case of WP:GARAGE. Fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to be many brief mentions of the band in Google books, e.g. [72] whether that makes them notable or not I'm not sure, but I expect there would be in-depth coverage in Belgian sources. It might come down to finding sources that may not have been archived in the internet (which is always a problem for finding sources for subjects that existed pre-internet age) as well as in non-English sources. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On consideration, I think the band qualifies under criterion #6 of WP:NBAND as it is an an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians. As for sources, as mentioned above, there are many that talk about the ensemble, some very recent, e.g. [73][74][75][76] (this appears to suggest the ensemble won some award), [77]. That the group continued to be mentioned over a long period of time suggests that there is some lasting notability. Hzh (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 11:30, 24 September 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)} 03:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article does not cite any sources (I am happy to withdraw this call for deletion if some one can find some sources for this article). Vorbee (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources have been added, there should be more. Hzh (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with original post.Vmavanti (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if people actually read the guideline on notability WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is not determined by the sources in the article, but sources that can be found per WP:NEXIST. The rationale for the nomination is invalid. Hzh (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what notability is. A quick internet search gives at least an idea of what sources are available. The purpose of a citation is so the reader can look up the source and verify the information in the article. A reader can't verify anything if there are no sources, unreliable sources, broken links, or sources in a foreign language. If sources are that hard to find, it's one indication that the subject is not notable. Writers, editors, contributors need to learn that their interests are not necessarily shared by by others. That's simply part of growing up.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem finding sources, note also that non-English sources are perfectly fine per WP:SIGCOV. I have no particular interest in the subject, but at the least I try to look for sources before deciding whether something is notable or not, which is something required when nominating an article for deletion per WP:BEFORE, something the nominator did not do. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but logic and common sense suggest that readers of the English Wikipedia benefit most from English sources, and that is what the documentation encourages.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the guidelines say. Whether the sources is in English, or whether something is online and easily searchable is not relevant to the question of notabiltiy. Hzh (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was related to notability, but the documentation does favor English sources for the English Wikipedia. I'm certain of that.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion, WP:DEL-REASON for reason to delete. Hzh (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I put the time with google translate and found that most of the sources just mention the group in passing, or not at all--this is not significant coverage. The first two refs actually do discuss the group directly, albeit briefly, and in my view this is still no quite enough to meet of WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gonçalo da Silveira Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - written in a promotional manner, but can probably be fixed. I would suggest moving to draft. Deb (talk) 14:30, 1 October 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)} 03:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sign of coverage independent sources. I could be persuaded to change my mind if sources were forthcoming. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now but move to draft. This can be a notable subject however there is no immediate sign if notability and the tone is also promotional. GenuineArt (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy[edit]

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

press release for a fund raising organization; no indication of notability -- just theu sual announcments and PR. Written in pure-PR talk, with the usual name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Note the clear WP:COI issue with the article creator as well, including a requested move to an even more promotional title. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Farm and Gardens[edit]

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

Small, largely promotional article about a business. Article doesn't establish clear notability. Bitmapped (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam shows a variety of brief mentions in local media articles, confirming this as a company going about its business, and Google Books also shows various mentions, but my searches are not finding the in-depth coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Adkins, Leonard (2011). Explorer's Guide West Virginia. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-88-150-947-2. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  THe book notes:
  
  Sunshine Farm and Gardens (304-497-2208; www.sunfarm.com), 696 Glicks Rd. Reaching this place may test if you are a true explorer or not. After turning off a major highway, the roads you follow become increasingly more rural, to the point that the final approach is on a one-lane dirt road winding its way up to the 60 acres of mountaintop property. However, once here, it's a feast for the eyes and the mind of anyone who is even slightly interested in flowers and horticulture. Barry Glick has been cultivating and propagating many kinds of plants (more than 10,000) for more than three decades, with an emphasis on hellebores. Although the business caters to plant wholesalers, Mr. Glick invites the general public to visit his 24-acre show gardens, with something in blossom almost year-round. As I said, it's a feast for the eyes and something not to be missed. You need to call to make reservations and for directions—and to make sure someone will be there after you invest the time in getting there.
2. Clauson-Wicker, Su (2010) [1995]. West Virginia Off the Beaten Path®, 7th: A Guide to Unique Places (7 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-7627-5334-5. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  The book notes:
  
  Now you have to ask yourself if it is worth driving 10 miles over unpaved, mountain single-lane to see acres of hellebores blooming in the snow. Barry Glick, who owns the mountaintop Sunshine Farm and Gardens in northern Greenbrier County, will assure you it is. But if you go, use caution on his driveway, a mile-long vertical shoot of mud and shale. A four-wheel-drive vehicle with high clearance is best.
  Glick's 68,000 outdoor hellebores bloom maroon, black, white, yellow, and pink from February through June. On sunny days you'll see his crew dabbing paintbrushes into the flowers, doing the work of the hummingbirds and the bees and creating new varieties of the nodding, poppylike flower.
  Besides the outdoor gardens, Glick nurtures four greenhouses of plants, almost 10,000 varieties of hellebores, cyclamen, primroses, anemones, and other species, some unknown to anyone else. Glick introduces them to the world through his wholesale business with nurseries around the globe. "You might say I have an obsessive love of plants", he says.
3. Stocker, Carol (2001-03-15). "Hybrid Hellebores: hot, hard to find". The Boston Globe. p. 122. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2018-09-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Sunshine Farm and Gardens (Route 5G, Renick, W.Va. 24966, 304- 497-2208) is a cutting-edge source. Their "Sunshine Selections" strain is also a relative bargain.
  This nursery hand pollinates 50,000 stock plants collected from top hybridizers in England, New Zealand, Australia, and Belgium. It's a tedious and labor-intensive process lasting through the plants' three-month bloom period. But it ensuresthat plants don't self- pollinate, which owner Barry Glick maintains can result in less desirable offspring. In mid-May, small drawstring bags are placed over the pregnant seed heads, creating an odd scene on the remote West Virginia mountain where he is the local economy's major employer. These are removed when the seeds are ready to harvest in early July. The seeds are then cleaned and sown in an environmentally controlled space until they germinate the following January.
  Although its business is mostly wholesale, Sunshine Farm will sell single year-old hellebores that will bloom in another two years to retail customers for $3 apiece plus shipping. They are not categorized by color, but sample photos can be viewed at the Web site: www.sunfarm.com.
  [Information from Glick]
4. Dowell, Christopher (2018-01-28). "Greenbrier County garden center to provide landscape during 2022 Winter Olympics". WV News. NCWV Media. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Sunshine Farm and Gardens, an internationally known 60-acre plant nursery, garden center and arboretum near Renick, recently concluded negotiations with Tam & Associates to provide landscape material for several locations in China.
  The West Virginia-bred and grown plants will be used in the landscaping of several Olympic venues in the 2022 Winter Olympics, as well as for another commercial project in Liaoning Province. The plants will be shipped to China this winter and grown to maturity at several Chinese nurseries.
5. "Plant hellebores, they're heavenly". The News-Times. 2003-04-27. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Much of the credit for this bonanza is due to Barry Glick, impresario of Sunshine Farm and Gardens in Renick, W.Va., where six of his 60-acre hillside gardens are devoted exclusively to hellebores. If you're fortunately enough to visit in mid-March when bloom is at its peak, you'll see more than 60,000 mature hellebores all in blossom. Sensational!
  ...
  The display gardens at Sunshine Farm and Gardens were completely redesigned by Matthew Bishop of Devon, England, in 1993, and several thousand new plants were planted in the then-24-year-old garden.
  Visitors are welcome with advance notice, but if you can't visit, photographs taken by the world famous photographer, Mark Turner of Turner Photographics, make up several self-guided tours that have become enormously popular with gardeners. Pictures include exquisite close-ups of individual blossoms plus sweeping views of the display gardens.
  With a state-of-the-art tissue culture laboratory, Sunshine Farm and Gardens is involved in experimental genetics on plant material, the goal of which is to develop new and better plants for landscape and the garden. The commercial arm of the operation provides high-quality unusual plants at reasonable prices to garden centers, nurseries, landscape professionals - and home gardeners (that's you, dear readers, and me) worldwide. So we should order by mail or phone.
6. Fritz, Jerry (May–June 2004). "Sunshine Farm and Gardens, Renick, West Virginia". Garden Design. No. 125. World Publications. p. 24. ISSN 0733-4923.
  The abstract of the article notes:
  Presents an article about a trip at Sunshine Farm and Gardens owned by Barry Glick in West Virginia. Background of Glick; Features of the garden; Information on ornamental plants in the garden.
7. Bussell, Gene B. (January 2010). "Winter's First Bouquet" (PDF). Southern Living. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Hidden beneath oak trees in the mountains of West Virginia is a hillside garden that grew from one man’s passion for hellebores, or Lenten roses. He has grown a staggering collection of them—more than 100,000—and knows each plant on his 60-acre nursery like an old friend. “They’re kinda like snowflakes,” he explains. “Each bloom is unique.”
  He is Barry Glick, owner of Sunshine Farm and Gardens in Renick. Barry specializes in breeding double hellebores, but he grows all kinds. His collection is the largest in the South, hands down.
8. Orosz, Monica (2010-04-14). "Just call him the King of Helleborus Man offers 100,000 plants on 60 acres in Greenbrier County". Charleston Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Barry Glick arrived in Greenbrier County from Philadelphia 38 years ago intending to grow hostas and daylilies to sell. When deer ravaged his first attempts, he turned to hellebores, a lovely spring-blooming plant that has done so well, Glick's Sunshine Farm and Gardens now is one of the largest growers in the country. He hand-pollinates new varieties in his four greenhouses.
9. Busse, Sara (2008-11-16). "Research confirms suspicions: Shade trees save money". Charleston Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Sunshine Farm earns patent
  The U.S. Patent Office has awarded Sunshine Farm and Gardens a plant patent for its hardy perennial poinsettia Euphorbia Jessie. The plant is the first known interspecific Euphorbia hybrid, a cross between E. griffithii and E. polychrome. Sunshine Farm and Gardens is a 36-year-old arboretum, plant nursery and botanical garden in Renick, Greenbrier County. Visit www.sunfarm.com.
10. Schwartz-Barker, Lynne (1996-04-14). "Plant Manager". Charleston Gazette-Mail.
  The article is 1,492 words long.
  The article notes:
  
  A few weeks ago, a friend and I decided to finally go see Barry Glick. He is someone I had been hearing stories about for years. A photographer, hot tub manufacturer and plantsman extraordinaire, Glick, his wife and two children live in a pristine part of the Greenbrier Valley, up a steep and rutted road outside of Renick.
  The day we made our trip was one of the few beautiful days we had in March. We drove past farm fields and stately old houses, by cattle and horses, beaver dams and rushing streams. At long last, we came to the road that leads up to Sunshine Farm and Gardens. We took one look at the slope, the mud and the rocks, and decided to park the car and walk.
  ...
  Sunshine Farm and Gardens, by the way, is listed in the International Directory of Botanic Gardens. Several years ago, Glick started the North American Plant Preservation Council, devoted to cataloging cultivated plant collections in private gardens, like his own hellebore, peony and daffodil collections. Glick also wants to see the rare plants in these collections propagated and planted in other geographic areas, so if there is some natural disaster in an area, the plants won't be lost forever.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sunshine Farm and Gardens to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about promotion: This is the article's text:
Sunshine Farm and Gardens (60 acres) is a commercial garden and wholesale nursery located at 3,000 feet (910 m) altitude near Falling Spring / Renick, West Virginia. It is open to the public by prior reservation.
The gardens contain over 10,000 different varieties of perennials, bulbs, trees and shrubs. Its main focus is on breeding new varieties of the genus Helleborus, with 6 acres (24,000 m²) of farmland devoted to more than 68,000 hellebores.
I reviewed the article. I do not consider the article to be promotional.
Cunard (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources detailed by Cunard are sufficient enough. Orientls (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cunard. It seems like a public attraction, consider the deep thoughts of essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION. --Doncram (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casey DeSantis[edit]

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

Notability tag removed with the explanation "how is a popular tv show host not notable?" Well, if the sourcing is insufficient, the person isn't notable. I don't think she has enough sources for WP:GNG, so let's discuss. Some of the sourcing is just about her notable husband, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local Emmys don't add up toward notability, and neither does running a local TV show. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. She is a host of a TV show which has garnered recognition and is potentially the next First Lady of Florida. A merge in her husband's article would be preferable to delete, but she still meets the notability bar. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage appears to be more about her husband than about her. A "TV show which has garnered recognition" is not part of the "notability bar", just significant coverage in reliable sources, and her coverage is not significant. And "potentially" the next First Lady of Florida, that's not a position that grants notability per WP:NPOL (the current First Lady of Florida doesn't have a page, only seven pages are categorized in Category:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Florida), and that's also WP:CRYSTAL. The page can be recreated if she does at some point become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it's very borderline and the referencing looks a bit sloppy. Deb (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Transformation Pack[edit]

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

No coverage outside blog-like sources like ZDNet or Softpedia or magazines. Looking at the previous AfDs for this article, there has been no reliable sources provided by the participants. No evidence of any long-term significance as project was short-lived. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows Vista. I don't think it's notable, but the previous discussions note that this is a not uncommon search term. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I don't think so, it is not a component of Windows Vista, but rather third party software, hence such a merger would be plainly trivial. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  This article is relevant to the reception of Vista because people are trying to get other OSes to look like Vista. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Champion. It's sufficiently dissimilar to Vista that a merge/redirect would not make sense in this case. --John M Wolfson (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Neutral nom at first reading nomination seems to ignore/contradict findings of 2nd nomination when people possibly had better access to offline resources. And while of lesser relevance now it is a record of what was important at the time. Ideally i'd like it updated, release history summarised into prose and expired PROD Seven Transformation Pack merged. I do occasionally like to read this sort of stuff. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given Modernponderer's comments I took another look. I'm by no means clear there is any copyright violation on Wikipedia. However there underlying website seems still going on the same transformation topic. In the end I'd have to dig a lot deeper ... and it has become too hard as the article would need a significant update anyway really to remain. I will take my vote to neutral unless something comes to sway me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:C: This should absolutely not be kept, merged, or even redirected. This project is (caveat: IANAL) a blatant copyright violation in itself, by grafting the copyrighted UI of Vista onto XP. Even if there were arguable notability from the now-inaccessible sources from the prior AfD (which there almost certainly isn't – the "sources" I found myself barely have one-line mentions) Wikipedia should never have an article like this unless the subject meets a clear and definite standard of notability, to the point that it basically has to have one. And as this project has nothing to do with Vista itself, it certainly should not be redirected to that article, let alone merged with it. Modernponderer (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I am not saying the article necessarily contains any copyright violations (though that is subject to interpretation). I am saying that Wikipedia should never report on copyright violations with even somewhat questionable notability, much like the higher standards for things like hoaxes, or even BLPs. Modernponderer (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Susilovic[edit]

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

Possibly fail notability guidelines. There are few third-party sources covering the person. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. Take a look under "News" for all the reports. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen Well all of them seem to be passing mentions and no in-depth coverage. Plus you yourself admitted that the article need better sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

No such admission by me.

Be that as it may, there is plenty there now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, I think it fails the guidelines for actors as he's predominantly known for only one show. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not just an actor, but is a noteworthy restauranteur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Google, most mentions are forum posts and all the news links are passing mentions. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you don't think the books count either. Oh well! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What books? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=osZN7E2Bb0sC&pg=PT54&dq=%22Jean-Philippe+Susilovic%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijotzu_8ndAhUkDMAKHR5BBIUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Jean-Philippe%20Susilovic%22%20-wikipedia&f=false just have a passing mention
So as https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IMVADwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA201&dq=%22Jean-Philippe+Susilovic%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijotzu_8ndAhUkDMAKHR5BBIUQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=%22Jean-Philippe%20Susilovic%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

I can't see the content of https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=syUR2i0tJZAC&pg=PA218&redir_esc=y or https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w8KztFy6QYwC&pg=PA601&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false but I suspect it just mentions him in one or two lines. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very little of substance has been presented here. A three minute TV article, a couple of paragraphs in an article profiling every club in the same division and a handful of other articles limited to a few short paragraphs from local news outlets isn't really GNG. Unsurprising given that the team have only ever competed at a local level. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seekwae F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN not played in the country's national cup yet. Fails WP:GNG the 4 sources are routine or a in the case of khaonakhonsawan.com a press release to a local source. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This team play in Thailand Amateur League. It is lower level Thailand national cup. https://www.thaileague.co.th/official/ta/?r=Site/Index. This team has public source are http://www.supersubthailand.com/ and http://www.thailive.net/. http://khaonakhonsawan.com is local news but It post in google. Public can see this new. Aquaelfin (talk) 3:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Aquaelfin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Comment: Subject of a 3-minute news scoop by PPTV, a national TV station.[78] Profiled by FourFourTwo.com (3 paragraphs in an overview article of the teams in the league).[79] Covered by Thailive.net,[80] Khobsanam.com[81] & KhaoNakhonsawan.com,[82] which are special interest / local news websites. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, no significant coverage or achievements. Giant Snowman 12:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the aforementioned coverage might just pass the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is very little citation, article basically fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Paul_012. SportingFlyer talk 07:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hugs[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill local band. Does not meet musical notability criteria. Google hits are either local press (not regional or national notability) or vanity hits. Article originally written and continues to be updated by one or another publicity agent for band. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A profile on them in Interview Magazine, with passages that are clearly secondary and available to cite, one of the most historic and loved magazines in pop culture that is sold internationally is not small secondary sourcing. That is definitely not local publicity. I also see detailed coverage in NME, one of the biggest music magazines in the UK and in the world. A review in the Portland Mercury. Obviously passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No "run of the mill local band" gets that coverage. Also, Google Search is not our arbiter-- the sources available to us to write the article are. Much love x.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most of the coverage is fairly local, the rest isn't really in-depth to any degree, but there's maybe enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Michig really. Most of the coverage is local and none is in-depth. So that means the person doesn't meet notability guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Valeince (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A notable profile on them in Interview Magazine, and a quote in New York Post by acclaimed movie director Gus Van Sant that both have quotes and detailed coverage. Those two articles are not small secondary sourcing. That is definitely not local publicity. Detailed coverage in NME, Interview Magazine, and New York Post seems more than sufficient. Both articles are in depth including quotes. Article could be edited to remove less regional and local coverage, if needed. Multiple features in the Portland Mercury and Willamette Weekly are borderline regional and are both notable publications as well as in depth. Article passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I don't see any signs of 'vanity hits' in Google upon search. The national articles written on them from NME, Interview, and New York Post do come up in search results. Also, Google Search is not our arbiter-- the sources available to us to write the article are.Beinganiceperson (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because they have local coverage doesn't mean they only have local coverage. This article has the secondary sources to pass WP:GNG-- just because it also has local sources as well doesn't contaminate its notability as a band. Interview and NME are two of the biggest international publications in print music/cultural media. They absolutely should not be discounted.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also it seems their music has been featured on HBO's Girls, a Gap commerical, ABC, MTV. This is not a local garage band, no matter if your personal taste isn't them-- we should asses them with the facts available to us and not assume they are a local-run-of-the-mill band just because we personally may not have heard of them.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not much experienced with AFDs and notability standards for musical groups, but the Interview Magazine article (included in the article) and other sources look substantial and non-local. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Joseph Dumont[edit]

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

No properly formatted references. No credible claim of significance. Does not meet military notability guidelines or general notability.

See Wikipedia is not a memorial.

French text is out of place in the English Wikipedia.

Was nominated for A7,G11, but speedy tag removed by an IP, so we will go to AFD for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:TNT and failing WP:V (none of the links I followed in the article lead to verifying anything about Dumont). Possible COI vs. creating user based on user name. Being a Legion of Honour commander class would actually be a possible credible claim to notability - BUT - no ref to verify this in the article, and I haven't been able to verify this. In my BEFORE I haven't been able to find much on the 20th century individual (there is at least one 19th century figure with a few book hits with the same name). The article itself - is one big mess and is definitely in the TNT zone regardless of the V issues. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and not meeting WP:GNG, agree with above that cited sources are not related to this Dumont, ie. did he receive a Legion of Honour?, an editor called "Dumontr123" (only edit) added him to List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name (D) back in 2014 but with no citation, searching the LofH website comes up with nothing relevant, did find this that concentrates on his war service but not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of significance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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