Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 August	16 August >

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 redirect to Ed Darack. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Mission of Extortion 17[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG. The airspacemag and Smithsonian links are both connected to the publisher. The BEFORE search indicated only mere mentions like this or websites selling the book. I don't think the Publishers Weekly review is enough to connote notability. It would make more sense to add a sentence about this book in the article about the event, itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the article about the author per WP:TOOSOON. This could be notable when it is published in September but at the moment there is simply nothing to work with in regards determines notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - is fine, although I'd also support delete. This is an unpublished book and could easily have enough reviews in two weeks, but right now is unencyclopedic PR, in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Easy alternative to deletion. PW and LJ are librarian trade mags—they review all books, not with discretion to the "notable" ones. Wait for several reliable, secondary source reviews. czar 04:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect (if not delete). It looks like an advert for a rather ordinary book. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to author article; otherwise, a lightweight book promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pain[edit]

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

Last nomination closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination after no-one supported keeping the article. After reviewing it more in depth, this clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. No substantial mentions in reliable sources. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying TheGracefulSlick, the only non-blocked editor who participated in the last AfD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, and no reliable references in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing to indicate that this band meets the WP:BAND requirements of notability. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Walske[edit]

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

I suspect that the subject meets neither our notability guidelines for journalists or researchers. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Early career academic with a GS h-index of 4 does not pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, really no indication that the subject passes the average professor test or is notable for any other reason, bordering on WP:CSD#A7 territory. Also note that this article was written by a sockpuppet of an undisclosed paid editor. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbashi-dōri-gochōme Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(This is the last one in this batch - can somebody please merge the AFDs together? Thanks in advance!) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbashi-shako-mae Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbashi-dōri-sanchōme Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbashi-dōri-nichōme Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbashi-dōri-itchōme Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umenotsuji Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasuikemachi-dōri Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kōchibashi Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kōchi-Ekimae Station[edit]

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR PROCEDURAL CLOSE: I am currently merging my AFDs relating to the Tosaden Kotsu into one omnibus discussion, in order to make things easier and gather a better consensus.

The link to the main AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 22:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per proof that the band has charted in Sweden. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caramba (band)[edit]

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

Not notable, no sourcing found. Considered an A9 but there are some possible assertations of notability. However I was unable to find reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's some--here is a mention (this is the one listed at the bottom) but it's not much. And here is another mention. But yeah, that's it, so I'm going with ~~delete~~ keep given the chart information below... Drmies (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band was on the Swedish charts in 1981, including a couple of weeks as the #1 single, which is sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC guideline #2. — mlc _talk 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mlc. Add that to the page to help establish notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlc: @RickinBaltimore: And these sources are going to magically add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can do so when I'm at an actual computer later, unless it's done by then. Rather not from a mobile device. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've done so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per mlc. /Julle (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America's Got Talent (season 11)#Top 36 acts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caly Bevier[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a singer, whose only substantive or reliably sourced claim of notability is having been a non-winning competitor on a reality show. Nothing else here passes WP:NMUSIC at all: she has yet to release her debut recording, the live appearances sourced here are all in Toledo, Ohio (which her hometown is a suburb of), and every single reference here is either a primary source that cannot assist notability at all, or local coverage in Toledo's local media. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she has to achieve something that satisfies WP:NMUSIC, and have the reliable source coverage to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please do explain how WP:BEFORE was followed in this case. I see no argument not to redirect to America's Got Talent (season 11)#Top 36 acts per WP:NMUSIC and WP:ATD-R but I might have missed something. Regards So Why 08:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect can still be created from the redlink if desired. But the reason I listed it for deletion rather than redirection per se is that there's no valid or substantive reason to retain the article's content in the edit history of the title or to merge any more of the content from here than the target already contains. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:40, 7 August 2017 (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/2017 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Redirect deleted article. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, redirect, or delete & redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 20:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. It fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jdcomix (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Works of Alan Watts[edit]

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

No references. Written in a personal tone addressed to the reader rather than a formal impersonal tone. Contains opinions amounting to original research. A list of the works of Alan Watts can be and should be in Alan Watts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for deletion less than an hour after creation, for issues that are fixable by editing, on a bibliography list for a clearly notable writer? What else. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a notable topic for an article but once promotional and personal opinion wording is removed like "Alan Watts was one of the greatest orators and philosophers of the 20th century." and "I believe many of Watts' greatest works were his lectures and I think that ... " theres not much left of the intro, where are the sources that discuss Watts' lectures, and why aren't his numerous books included (see main article)? suggest delete and or draftify. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has a negligible number of visitors and it has potential to be a good article once the introduction is sorted out and the rest of it is finished. It shouldn't be included under Alan Watts as this page has potential to be quite long and it is not necessarily related to the life of Alan Watts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestcom (talk • contribs)
Keep. Deletion is normally a last resort. See WP:ATD. All problems stated here are fixable by normal editing. I agree with Gestcom that including this long list of works in Alan Watts would clutter it unnecessarily.

—Syrenka V (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "books" section to make it more rounded but it is mostly extracted from Alan Watts. The introduction has been refined and is open for improvement. Gestcom (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

I think we are all agreed that the original criteria for deletion has been resolved. "No references. Written in a personal tone addressed to the reader rather than a formal impersonal tone. Contains opinions amounting to original research. A list of the works of Alan Watts can be and should be in Alan Watts". To that end, all words (save the introduction) are referenced; The personal tone has been addressed; There is no original research in the article; and a list of alan's works would only clutter Alan Watts both as a list of his books (which already exists) and as a transcript of parts of his lectures. Thanks everyone! Gestcom (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

Comment It may well be the case that an article about the works of Alan Watts is likely to be notable, but when I first saw it, almost all of the content consisted of extremely long quotes. I have removed the excessive quotes with an explanation on the article talk page.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you just blanked 99% of the page?! Gestcom (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

Yes, and I explained why. You are new, so you don't yet know, but you should never revert another edit without a good explanation. --S Philbrick (Talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if we could continue this on the talk page, thanks. Gestcom (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

Consider moving to Draft I accept Andy's point that this is a clearly notable writer and thus we ought to have an article. However, it is not close to ready yet. If the principal author follows my advice(Talk:The Works of Alan Watts) and contacts the copyright holder of the audio and arranges for a license for transcripts, it is my opinion that the material belongs in Wikisource, not here, and then this article could contain links to the Wikisource material along with brief excerpts and some further discussion. However, that's not something that's gonna happen in a few minutes, so my suggestion is that this should be moved to draft space until it's in better shape. That's the whole point of draft space, to act as a repository for articles that are quite ready for mainspace this one isn't ready yet but could be in the near future.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on draftification: WP:DRAFTIFY says little about the circumstances under which draftification is appropriate, but it refers back to its currently inactive predecessor WP:Article incubator, which makes it clear that incubation/draft status is a last resort for articles that would otherwise require deletion. Stubs should never be deleted just for being stubs, and they should never be draftified just for being stubs either. And the present page is not a stub when considered as a whole anyway; only its blanked summaries of the talks look that way. WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, AND WP:DINC apply just as much to draftification as to outright deletion.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clearly no consensus to delete. Early in the discussion, things were trending towards draftify but after some improvements were made to the articles, sentiment was clearly to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sky Raiders[edit]

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

This is one of multiple stubs on movies, none of which contain enough information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also The California Trail. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Westerner (1934 film).

Also One Way Ticket (1935 film). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fifty Fathoms Deep (1931 film)

Also The Quitter (1929 film) Robert McClenon (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move all to Draft namespace – Source searches I have performed for these historic films are demonstrating notability. In their current states, these articles are better in Draft namespace for the time being, where they can improved. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is fine with the nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Keep User:Ryathoma is a new editor and has been creating a lot of stubs, some of which have been incorrectly tagged as WP:A1 when it is quite clear even from one sentence what the context is – old Columbia Pictures movies. They are probably notable as releases from a major Hollywood studio ~~and should be moved to draftspace and worked on there, not deleted.~~--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep as they now appear to be valid stubs.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the bulk creator won't give a reference to where they discovered the names and years, it's a waste of everyone's time to keep this as a draft. If they can provide a reference, I support keeping them as articles in main space, even if there's only 1 sentence of text and 1 reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The data can be verified at the TCM database.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a reliable source (unilke IMDB), I support keeping the article in [1] form. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The film exists and notable but in it's current format article doesn't even satisfy stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several of this editor's earlier stubs were moved to Draft and then deleted as "Obvious hoax" - despite being findable on TCM database and imdb (see Draft:Speed Mad and Draft:Man Against Woman). Will these new articles, if draftified, disappear similarly? PamD 07:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. That's what I've been doing with these, and I think it's the least bad of the available options (deletion as "hoax" was surely a mistake). The editor shows no sign of willingness to communicate (zero talk-space edits), so it's possible there's an insuperable language problem here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fifty Fathoms Deep (1931 film) as I've added a WP:RS, formatted etc, and used it as an example to discuss at User_talk:Ryathoma#Writing_articles. PamD 07:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: Thanks to the energetic help of the Wikipedia community every article is sourced now with external links to IMDb / TCM / AFI (which should be reliable enough) and has categories added. -- MovieFex (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So long as these articles can be properly referenced, I see no need for deletion. All seem to be notable films. ExRat (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as stubs. There are many books on westerns and the history of Hollywood likely to provide some information, as well as contemporary sources. The articles are now valid stubs, now offering useful information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are being improved and no longer require WP:TNT Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a plot summary using some minor sources, and the movie poster. This was a film released by a mainstream studio. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MovieFex. 00:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinem Yalçındağ[edit]

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

Non-notable person and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question does Sportsfan 1234 know that WP:GNG supercedes WP:NHOCKEY? Hmlarson (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, because a recent spat of badminton articles I nominated were voted keep, using WP:Badminton as justification, when most if not all had next to none GNG coverage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT. Article could use expansion, not deletion, per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She officiated at the 2016 IIHF Women's World Championship Division II. CeeGee 11:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What notability criterion do you claim that meets? Ravenswing 20:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. Clearly nominator didn't do any WP:BEFORE as evidenced by his mass AfD's and PRODs all within a very short timespan. Maybe it's time we take this to [{WP:ANI]]? It's getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly you didn't even take the most cursory look at ANY of the sources in the article before a reflexive Keep vote, and what I find troubling is you chasing the nom around removing his prods and voting Keep on his AfDs with such lack of examination of the merits. Which of them do you claim provide coverage in "substantial detail" to the subject? Ravenswing 15:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing in this player's bio that passes WP:NHOCKEY, and I don't see a list of sources that evidence a passing of GNG, so I don't understand what the issue is. There is not one argument here yet that illustrates a GNG pass and a google search only yielded many databases or summaries of game action so I don't get it. Happy to be proven wrong, but please can someone at least highlight some independent non-routine coverage of this athlete before attacking the nominator. I know guys who play in the highest level in Thailand, are they automatically notable if they are in a database and have coverage of a game they play in?18abruce (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally bizarre that editors are making the claim that she passes GNG when all the evidence is incomplete database entries or game summaries. If the top european databases available can't even supply place of birth or club team participation what chance is there that an athlete in the internet age is in any way notable.18abruce (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. None at all, and were we going to take anyone to ANI, I'd just as soon it be the people tossing around bad faith accusations when it's plain they've not taken so much as a cursory look at the sources involved. The GNG stipulates that a source provide the subject coverage in "significant detail" to qualify as supporting notability. Simple namedrops do not, and never have, qualified. As far as NHOCKEY goes, it's an unfortunate fact of the regard women's hockey is held in worldwide that no level of women's play (save for participation at the Olympic Games, which falls under a different SNG) is prominent enough to meet any element of NHOCKEY, and individual players rise and fall on the GNG.
As far as the Keep voters go, they've been challenged repeatedly to back their votes up with the specific cites they think meet the GNG. So far, in none of these Turkish hockey AfDs, has a single one of them responded, and they haven't here either. Ravenswing 15:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a news search, I found maybe one article that may have some significant coverage. But since I cannot read Turkish and Google Translate is only so-so, it read as if she was a part of a complaint against their federation or a coach in one of tournaments. However, this is still not enough for GNG as it needs multiple, significant, independent, and reliable sources; not just the WP:ROUTINE coverage this player has. As for NHOCKEY, I have no idea why someone would think the top level Turkish league has the same pass/fail criteria as the KHL/NHL/Liiga or would interpret NHOCKEY in that way. Yosemiter (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't remotely meet NHOCKEY. And I can not find any sources that cover them in significant detail. Only database mentions which means they don't meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of all of the Turkish ice hockey players nominated for deletion, this to me is the one that is most clearly the most notable based on the depth of coverage by the Turkish media. She has been covered in multiple publications dating back to 2006. This coverage dates back to 2006 and her time on the national field hockey team, her participation on the national ice hockey team, and her serving as a referee. --LauraHale (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After I burned the last hour poring over the cites in the Jana Kivell [2] and Gizem Öztaşdelen [3] AfDs, only to see that you tossed in a blizzard of namedrops and mentions in tables, photo captions and roster lists without a single cite that could qualify under the GNG, I would really appreciate you linking to the cites you claim meet the requirements of the GNG in this case. Ravenswing 18:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the GNG usually supercedes all other notablity requirments, a prejudice for keeping is not bad. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am also having trouble finding English language sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The level of competition doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. The clincher for me is that she has no article on the Turkish Wikipedia, even with all the Turkish language sources used for this article. I know the Turkish Wikipedia has been blocked since April, but if her career had been notable up to that point, wouldn't there be something about her there? This is the team info page from the Turkish Wiki article for Ice hockey at the 2011 Winter Universiade [[4]] I notice none of the other players seem to have articles either. Can a Turkish player who is not considered notable enough for a Turkish article be notable enough for an English one? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of references but very little that is not WP:PRIMARY and nothing whatsoever that satisfies GNG, only stat sites and brief mentions in match reports. Not seeing a single in depth article on the player. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She clearly fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nopsec[edit]

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

Notability questionable. Appears to fail WP:CORP. Looks like advertising. Referred from WP:COIN. Most refs are to corporate site, or are bare mentions. No substantial coverage in WP:RS reliable sources. John Nagle (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much online. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough sources for notability. They do seem to have a PR release each time a major cyber issues breaks. Not much more.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Press releases are still company produced material and fails the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto Cipher[edit]

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

PROD contested by a likely sock/meat of a paid editor. My concern remains: "A considerable way from meeting the notability requirement of WP:CORP." SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Goog: "No results found for "Crypto Cipher" -wikipedia -cipher". ☆ Bri (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG hands down. I couldn't find anything in the reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frosty the Dopeman[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources except a lyrics site madmusic and a link to an article that does not mention the subject. The original performing artist/composer Zydiak is not notable, but there is a somewhat credible claim of significance, albeit unsupported by any sources, so A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings) does not apply and I am bringing it here. Mduvekot (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a musical recording that does not indicate its own importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... This song has a 45-year history of influencing popular culture. It appears on at least 3 different published LPS, has forty or more different versions of the song appearing on Youtube (by various artists), was mentioned in a Hollywood film by a major studio, and has been written about in three books including a scholarly psychology treatise about the influence of music on the mind.

Kokain in der Musik : Bestandaufnahme und Analyse aus kriminologischer Perspektive, Kemper Wolf-Reinhard, Dissertation Bremen 2000, page 321, Nr. 107.

Just Say Noel : A History of Christmas from the Nativity to the Nineties, Comfort, David, Fireside – Simon & Schuster, 1995, page 64.

The Curious World of Drugs and Their Friends – A Very Trippy Miscellany, Niermann Ingo and Sack, Adriano, Plume / Penguin Books, 2008, page 117. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dementofan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a lot of bold claims here, with very little in the way of easily verifiable proof. Book sources are allowed, but do you have anything in the way of internet sources about this song? (Not YouTube videos of covers though - that part of your argument has no relevance saw to whether or not a Wikipedia article should exist.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this sentence: Avoiding Frebergs's fate, artists of the 1960s kept things between the lines in such hits as "Frosty the Dopeman" and "The Twelve Drugs of Christmas." from Just Say Noel: A History of Christmas from the Nativity to the Nineties helps to establish the notability for the song. Mduvekot (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm equally unimpressed with the mention in Kokain in der Musik: Bestandsaufnahme und Analyse aus kriminologischer Sicht which gives the lyrics, data for the recording on the Rhino label and makes no mention of influencing anyone. As for Nierman & Sacks's book, I can't see any mention of Frosty The Dopeman at all. Let's be very clear about how we consider notability in a case like thise: It doesn't matter how many covers exist on Youtube unless someone wrote about them and it was published in independent, reliable sources. I have seen no evidence that this is the case. Mduvekot (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't believe the article creator has any conception of Wikipedia's notability requirements, nor do I believe anything presented proves notability. I was merely starting with the basics and seeing if they had anything I could read about the subject at all. My google search only brought up unhelpful links like YouTube/SoundCloud covers and Urban Dictionary entires. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For total lack of coverage in reliable sources. I usually have some leeway with 1960s/70s music but I cannot overlook the subject's failure of WP:GNG. The article creator's argument was also not convincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any significant coverage to demonstrate that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 21:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesnt have the sourcing needed to meet the WP:GNG - I've found nothing significant online, and the book sources appear to merely be passing mentions. All other claims to keep it seem to be based around unsubstantiated or invalid claims. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to suggest merge with Mark Zydiak's article but then saw that he's not on the site either. I looked him up on Discogs and what little info I found on him doesn't mention this song.[[5]] I searched for the song on Amazon and found this showing 6 cover version but not much more.[[6]] I also feel that if this song was culturally significant, there'd be some coverage readily available. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) 00:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SystemImager[edit]

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

Non-notable software package: no independent refs, can't find anything in third-party reliable sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Links provided are how-to articles / not-independent, and a a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the software's developer, so possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for WP:NOQUORUM soft delete because of previous contested PROD, needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poorly written page without any good sources. Elliot321 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Marijuana, Inc.[edit]

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

This company has received a lot of coverage, but it's mostly in unreliable sources, and coverage in reliable sources is largely routine coverage. Source searches are not providing sources to meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Syrenka V (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be pretty notable , but does not meet the needed threshold/"requirements" (WP GNG and WP CORPDEPTH) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditCrunch (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in Money, The New York Times, and TheStreet.com satisfactorily establishes notability. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Money source is a directory listing, the NYT article has one name mention, and the The Street article is mostly about Kannaway, which does not have an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recommend changing citations/sources by including credible news articles and deleting any news releases or direct pick-up of news releases. The organization is notable.ctonih25

Keep. The article is indeed currently written like an advertisement, but that does not affect notability — only the existence of suitable sources does. I've added a citation to an article in Forbes that was previously only referenced through a story on the company's own website. While that story is not exclusively about the company, it is covered in detail as a major player in the expansion of the cannabidiol market. I've also added a section "Critical reception", with a citation to a detailed and balanced profile in The Motley Fool. After weighing pros and cons, the profile concludes by advising investors against purchasing this stock, as I noted in the article under consideration. That conclusion serves as balance against the advertising-like character of much of the page. Note also that both of these references mention Kannaway — as a subsidiary of Medical Marijuana, Inc. While a separate Wikipedia page on Kannaway is probably not needed, the article in TheStreet — which is specifically about Kannaway as a newly acquired subsidiary of Medical Marijuana, Inc. — should definitely count as coverage of its new parent company.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a Google search with the added term "high times" found a story from December 2016 in which High Times had listed Medical Marijuana, Inc. as #6 on a list of the 10 largest marijuana companies — and Axim Biotech as #5. I've added this to the section on "Notable media appearances". It also found, unexpectedly, a second profile in The Motley Fool from June 2017, by a different author. This second profile, like the first, advised against holding the stock; I've added it to the section on "Critical reception".

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep i just finished removing all of the promotional badly sourced content from this and rewrote it from scratch. My sense is that this is going to be a pain in the ass to keep neutral but it is ~marginally~ keepable. Part of that rewrite was merging the Kannalife article here, which had some decent sources (and a bunch of promotional trash that should never have been in WP). Most of the content here was penny-stock tracking trashy blogs and the company's own website and press releases. My !vote will flip to delete if that garbage is pushed back in - Wikipedia cannot become hijacked by penny stock floggers or trackers or what have you. That is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having examined the references listed in the article and produced by other editors above, ~~none~~ only one [edited - see below] meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either name-drops of the company, inclusions in lists or business profiles that rely on company materials and/or interviews/quotations from company sources. All of those references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and therefore the topic fails GNG. Can any of the editors above who believe this topic passes GNG please list below two or three references that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: Let's start with just one example, the first reference in the current version of page: Poway's cannabis conglomerate (Harvey 2015). This should be a good test of the merits of your arguments.

Note that both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND explicitly take the form of lists of criteria for lack (of depth or independence respectively), so you will need to state which particular criteria you think Harvey's article falls under. (Also, WP:CORPDEPTH allows for cases where a number of independent sources together can provide depth collectively even though no one source does so individually, but I doubt we will need that provision here.)

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syrenka V, you got me, that one is good. I've fixed my initial comment. Have you another and I will change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's move on to the second reference: The first pot stock billionaire says his penny stock could be a little high. Note that although the title of the article is a quotation from someone connected with the company (as an investor), the bulk of the information in it is from other sources; the quotation is used merely to set the context.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Syrenka V, in my opinion, the Forbes reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The first mention is in-passing (the main topic at that point in the former president Llamas). The second also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a mention in-passing in relation to how some shares issued to PhytoSphere were redistributed, in part, to the company. There's just not enough there to meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing! Neither mention is in passing. Both are in aid of the author's analysis of questionable dealings in marijuana stocks, which is the central topic of the article. The first mention includes a statement that Medical Marijuana had disclosed that it was under SEC investigation, which is there for the purpose of establishing Llamas's dubious background. The second mention is in a paragraph whose first sentence is "There is another connection between CannaVest and Llamas", and the mention is for the purpose of elucidating that connection: "PhytoSphere, which distributed the shares to its sole owners, Medical Marijuana and..."

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and Thanks Syrenka V but for me they're "passing mentions". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Springbox (company)[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:CORP guideline. Sources found after PROD attempt are a routine exec profile, local Austin media, trivial mention (Advertising Age: "LatinWorks will be the lead agency, and work with Springbox..."), or own company's press releases and rehashes of same (App Developer magazine: "Mobile1st has announced the launch of a new product ..."). Additional concerns listed at Conflict of interest noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would also add that the article is written like an advertisement. Elliot321 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I considered nominating it myself. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Other reasons as per nom. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Evans (television personality)[edit]

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

A TV Personality (host?) that doesn't pass WP:ENT nor WP:GNG (nor WP:JOURNALIST, which technically applies). Only sources I can find are passing mentions about him conducting an interview for example:[7], [8], [9], and [10]. The search Access Hollywood's Scott Evans will bring up plenty of passing mentions. menaechmi (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC) menaechmi (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here in the article supports a claim of notability and no sources found in a Google search that would improve the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He literally stands on red carpets with a mic and takes 'obviously we love this movie' statements from actors/actresses. That's the bare minimum to pass JOURNALIST, but nothing else. Nate • (chatter) 19:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Maybe one day, but not yet. At this point, he doesn't quite pass the requirements for notability. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Between merge and keep !votes, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Here the consensus is slightly in favor of keeping as opposed to merging but merging can always be discussed anew per Wikipedia:Merging. So Why 07:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guns of Boom[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Guns of Boom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable video game. Only one review in a reliable source (Pocket Gamer), possibly two if you count 148apps. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are significant coverage ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]). — TheMagnificentist 13:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call that significant, they are just minor lists of cheats, press releases, etc. It looks like you literally just went into Google and got everything that vaguely had the game's name in it, regardless of whether the source is reliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A source isn't unreliable until proven. — TheMagnificentist 20:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least a disputed statement according to the discussion at WT:V#Default status of a source. The closing administrator should weight it appropriately. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Game hits 10 milion of downloads in two month. Also this source is reliable [24] and article is not sponsored. Was in the best games of the month [25] and has gold award by PocketGamer [26]Kailiny JP (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the Pocket Gamer review, the other one from Pocket Gamer isn't significant. The one from Venturebeat could fall under WP:PROMO as it only has 1 sentence of actual opinions ("it reminds me of Team Fortress 2") and the rest is just regurgitating what the game is. The amount of downloads is also not a means of proving notability, popularity is not notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat promo articles are marked as Sponsored. It is their policy and the law, actually. That's why this article couldn't actually fall under WP:PROMO. PocketGamer and VentureBeat are among of the most important press media in the world of mobile technologies and mobile games. And PocketGamer's Gold Award has a big value in this industry. It is non-trivial coverage WP:Notability. - Kailiny JP (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll give you that Pocket Gamer and Venture Beat count. But usually the threshold for notability is 3 references with significant coverage. There is 148apps but it has been determined to be of questionable reliability. According to consensus [27] the editorial quality is "gray" and it should not be used to "push a game over the notability edge". So it really needs 1 more significant mention to be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's check out [28] also represented on Wikipedia [29] and [30] that is also a well-known website about mobile games and tech. -Kailiny JP (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is "represented on Wikipedia" doesn't make it reliable, see also: Breitbart, which has an article but is unreliable as a source. Can you prove that the sources you presented are reliable? Because when I looked at Heavy the articles about it said that it was "based on marketing" and "a marketing company" [31]. The article reads like kind of an advertisement without any sort of independent editorial content. That makes it more likely that it's a paid advertisement of some kind, which would fall under WP:PROMO.
All of the online media are marketing companies. Also, let's take a look at this one [32]. By the way, it can be non-trivial coverage cause it covers important technology in terms of mobile developement.-- Kailiny JP (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's patently false. Game journalists may use ads to support them, but New York Times does too, and they aren't a "marketing" company. Using ads on your site does not equate with being totally based around marketing things. That source you mentioned, might be reliable but it's certainly not significant, and probably falls under WP:PROMO due to the fact that it's predominantly a copy-paste of a press-release._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if interview can be significant or reliable then. But let's check this new out [33] -- Kailiny JP (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that new source definitely changes things. I think there's more of an argument towards notability now, when there was very little at the time of the AFD. I'm not going to go so far as to withdraw the AFD, since the other current sources are still lackluster. But, I would ask that the admin looking at this keep the article if nobody else contributes to this discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appolicious falls under that too, because they have a massive "pay us to submit your app for review" button on top of the page. That means that any sort of review may be biased and unreliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Game Insight as barely scraping WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews and impact) sources from WP:VG/RS: Pocket Gamer, Venture Beat. Pocket Gamer and Venture Beat have good content, but neither is in-depth and are basically news items. Multiplayer IT looks good (Editorial team), if we consider it reliable. 148Apps reliability is disputed, but it can add content, though not push the article over GNG. There's not enough content to have a full article. For other sources: Droid Gamers is not reliable. Mobile World, Christian Post, Heavy, Android Community are basically PR blurbs/feature lists. App2top, GameHub has no real content. Appolicious, Android Authority and MakeMac come closest to acceptable content, but are not vetted reliable sources and none show the signs of reliable sites -- editorial team, author credentials, established publisher, etc. In the end, the couple good and unvetted sources can be used for a few sentences in the company's article as a more "notable" example of their games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiplayer.it has been explicitly rejected or at least no-conned as a source at WT:VG/S. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it in the main list (I added it now). It doesn't look like it has been outright excluded though. I guess we can have another look at some point, since they have an editorial team and a publisher, which are two strong reliability indicators. I might post it later for review. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources. Not everything with ads is marketing. That's ridiculous. Smartyllama (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is extremely vague. Would you clarify why it's "ridiculous" for this particular article and what of the "above sources" you find significant for inclusion. Because there's still only one article that can truly be said to be significant/reliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Zxcvbnm. The number of sources listed is basically WP:BOMBARD without explaining how they are individually reliable, independent, and in-depth. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per provided sources and significant coverage. [34] - Kailiny JP (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Kailiny JP (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Kailiny JP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge per Hellknowz. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - download and revenue stats suggest this is an above average successful game. I just added different Venturebeat coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life Insurance Settlement Association[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The article was kept in a 2005 AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VLSAA because of Google hits and trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for WP:NOQUORUM soft delete because of previous AFD, needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, company non-notable. Elliot321 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beneva Flowers[edit]

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

A florist shop in a Florida strip mall with strictly local note in reliable sources fails WP:CORP for inclusion in Wikipedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A news search shows many hits, possibly just local news, but I think enough to be able to properly expand the article. Also see comments in AfD #1. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the article should be built with "just local news" sources? Because that is contrary to WP practice and encourages local-interest trivia. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a look at what shows up in the above-mentioned search. There is no substantial, in-depth coverage. Winner of "Best Flowers" in a local magazine is not enough. Mduvekot (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a better debate if we knew why you think it passes GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow L3X1 to address Bri's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added to the company's history using consolidated references, seeking to provide the expansion which was proposed above. However, while the shop's opening hours and local Sarasota County award, and more recent SRQ Local 2017 Best Flowers poll all indicate people working to make a success of their business, they are not substantial claims to encyclopaedic notability. Neither these nor the coverage of the sale of the business seem sufficient to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability Power~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no claim of significance; just a directory listing on a private company which is just going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; local trivial interest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is only a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the news link Ritchie provided. Only local sources that are fluff pieces not substantial enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing local business. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry G. Pellegrin[edit]

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

Absolutely fails WP:NOTABLE. Unsourced except for webpage of a guitar club of which subject is Vice-President. Nothing meeting notabiity criteria on a Google search. DePRODded by IP editor without explanation.Smerus (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent vanity page written by SPA editor. Lacks requisite independent, third party sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing both WP:PROF and WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Edward and the Time Traveling Adventure[edit]

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

DePRODed by anon without explanation. Concern was: Non notable self-published e-book from non notable author. Fails WP:NBOOK. Page is also clearly promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Entirely promotional. Lacks any useful references. Candidate for G11 speedy delete. Neiltonks (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per Neiltonks. Fails WP:NBOOK and written like an advertisement. Elliot321 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting looks like a good book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.198.64 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well read it in your own time. Wikipedia is not a review site. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, absolutely zero useable reviews found, red flag raised when WorldCat shows zero library holdings, is this a candidate for WP:G11 - promotion/advertising? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an example of why we need a WP:CSD for products. Toddst1 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable. Note that I have also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward and the Secret of VBS. --Finngall ^talk 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As WP:CSD#G7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Diamond (illustrator)[edit]

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

This article Peter Diamond (illustrator) is self-promotional. I can vouch for this because I made the page some years ago, about my own illustration work, in a very misguided attempt to improve my presence on the web. My thinking at the time was that if it were inappropriate for Wikipedia it would be removed, and if it isn't removed then maybe it belongs. This was of course a sorry misunderstanding of, and disrespect to, Wikipedia.
As much as the tone is fairly neutral and the references included originally are legitimate ones, making it perhaps pass Notability muster on a strictly technical basis, I feel that the fact that this article would not have been created had I not done so myself makes it unworthy of Wikipedia.
I use Wikipedia in my work nearly every day, and find it invaluable. Frankly, it turns my stomach that I contributed this piece of it and so this is my contrite request that it be considered for deletion. I hope I'm going about this the right way, if not please advise. Pete Diamond (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested deletion on WT:AFD. I have no opinion on the subject. Regards So Why 08:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so were you editing as Lisa Loibl (talk · contribs) who created the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) that's correct. Pete Diamond (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per G7. Elliot321 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that the article is an autobiography is credible, no other other editors have significant contributed to the content and no reasonable arguments in favour of keeping the article have been brought forward. While strictly speaking Lisa Loibl ought to make the request for deletion per WP:G7, I think we can do the subject the courtesy of fulfilling his request. Mduvekot (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the author/subject has requested and is the main editor of the article Atlantic306 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language first- and second-generation modernist writers[edit]

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

This list seems like a (slightly less inclusive) version of List of modernist writers. Granted, it is 10 years (almost to the day) older than List of modernist writers, but the content already exists under a better name. menaechmi (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I don't see any division by "generations" that needs to be saved. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Arbitrary parameters and unlikely to be a search object, ergo more akin to trivia than encyclopedic content. Carrite (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. "Unsourced stub" and "unedited" are not qualifiers for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splay (plastics)[edit]

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

Unsourced stub unedited for over a year and a half. IEsuredI (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 20:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vipac[edit]

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

Only employs 100 people. Probably non-notable company, failing WP:NCORP, and created by a WP:SPA. Extensive "awards" section - the most recent are both vanity awards, sceptical about the others. Edwardx (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is I think sufficient WP:NEXIST to keep this article. "only employs 100 people" - not a reason for deletion - notability is not conferred by the number of employees. NOM has only ided 2 of 17 awards as vanities. "probably not notable" - why - what WP:BEFORE did NOM do. There are easy to find standard google search results for partnerships with major academic institutions, eg the ANU, specialised facilities being opened by Federal Government Ministers, commissioned research] by Four Corners, etc. There is material for a more in-depth article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CORP itself, as mentioned above, actually says press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly, any material where the company talks about itself therefore any sourcing with immediate resemblance can be discounted; WP:NOT also says that "articles about garage or local companies are typically unacceptable" therefore the 100 employee count can be counted as a local company. To analyze sources: 1 is company website, 2 and 3 are event listing, 4-10 are announcements therefore not independent. There's also clear unconfessed company connections here, 1 and 2 accounts. That alone is enough for our WP:Deletion policy and without exceptions even when considering the coverage found was only announcements or notices. No matter if it's 20 or 30 press releases, it wouldn't cut it. WP:N explicitly says that articles need to guaranteed they're not violating WP:What Wikipedia is not, before chances of an article are gauged. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the current in-article references are poor, but there are NEXIST others which are independent. The company is a nation wide company, not local. Where is employee count referred to in any guideline, and even if it was it would only be a presumption not definitive. Aoziwe (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Most of the article is advertising - the list of "notable" projects reeks of promotion as does the list of awards most of which are unreferenced. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a sales prospectus, and that's what the article is. 100% advertorial content, which is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Kikuchi[edit]

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

Contested PROD (removed by article creator with no rationale). I'm limited to Anglophone sources here, but can't find anything meeting sport-specific notability, given the league this player participated in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2017 Unite the Right rally. I'm closing this quickly, per SNOW. It's a BLP in a contentious area, and right now we have enough on our plates. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather D. Heyer[edit]

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

See the biographies of living persons policy and biographies of persons known for one event as a crime victim. She is only notable because her killing was notable. She isn't otherwise notable as a human rights activist.

I've pulled the proposed deletion because I think this deserves a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:VICTIM. Twitbook space tube 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:VICTIM, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Does not meet any reasonable test of notability. WWGB (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per being the subject of many media organizations around the world for the last few days. The page can be edited to make it better. Synesthetic (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I was going to counter with JonBenet Ramsey for someone who is notable even though she is 'only notable because her killing was notable' but it appears there is no article for her. There is, however, an article for her death and for her father John Ramsey and her mother Patsy Ramsey. Okay, I give up. I tried. Synesthetic (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable. The lengthy "political response" section is off topic and should be merged with 2017 Unite the Right rally. The sections about Facebook and GoFundMe are not encyclopedic. The quotes from her mother and father saying she was wonderful are not encyclopedic either. The fact that she had a pet Chihuahua named "Violet"--who the dickens cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beloved pet chihuahua. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:VICTIM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the existing 2017 Unite the Right rally article, this one fails on the grounds of WP:VICTIM. — Javert2113 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – it is notable who she was. People will look for information about her, not just about her murder. Gui le Roi (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect The crime itself has an article. Doesn't seem she is notable other than being a victim. Could possibly change in the future due to hagiography or documentation of her past, but at the present this should go.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Redirect per E.M.Gregory.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

Related guidelines:

wp:victim

wp:memorial

While sufficient coverage exists to complete this article using reliable sources, the entirety of her notability is transferred to her via the notability of the event in which she terribly lost her life. The writing of the article about the event is well under way and it does no good to have a fork to her article, which is basically going to end up as a duplication of 2017 Unite the Right rally. this is grounds for at least considering this article for deletion. Edaham (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 Unite the Right rally#Vehicular attack. This is our routine approach to victims of notable attacks. Redirect preferred to merge, since her name is a plausible search term. See, for example, Taylor Force, an article redirected to 2016 Tel Aviv stabbings, even though he does have the Taylor Force Act named in his honor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2017 Unite the Right rally - plausible search term, but the notability of this tragic death is in the event. Neutrality^talk 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra shakya (Dijendra)[edit]

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

There are three problems with this article. First, it is blatantly promotional. There are far too many uses of peacock language. Second, the article has no references, and so does not back up any of the bragging. Third, a Google search does not find much in the way of independent coverage. The first could be dealt with, but not much would be left. The second can be dealt with by adding low-quality sources. He is still at best marginally notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jdcomix (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Gelsor Open Romania – Singles[edit]

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

Two sentence article with a lot of stats, referenced to a primary source. Appears to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 20:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What about: 2001 Gelsor Open Romania – Singles, 2002 Open Romania – Singles, 2003 BCR Open Romania – Singles, 2007 BCR Open Romania – Singles, 2008 BCR Open Romania – Singles, 2009 BCR Open Romania – Singles, 2010 BCR Open Romania – Singles, 2011 BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy – Singles, 2012 BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy – Singles, 2013 BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy – Singles, 2014 BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy – Singles, 2015 BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy – Singles, 2016 BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy – Singles? They should be also deleted? And all the singles draws for ATP and WTA tournaments? I think having an article with the main draw of an important ATP Tour event is an valuable piece of encyclopedic material. Is not Wikipedia an Encyclopedia? Or am I wrong? (Gabinho^>:) 07:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main draw articles for ATP Tennis Tournaments are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has only statistical information and like the nominator points out this isn't a stats website. 204.187.67.27 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, needs more GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So of all the thousands of similar articles, this, and only this, is not notable? Or they should all be deleted? If the latter, stealthily picking them off one by one isn't the solution, establishing consensus through an RfC is. If the former, what is the need to target this instead of the others? Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the two people so far that said delete, let me ask you this, if this is deleted then what about the similiar articles that resemble this like the WTA International or ATP World Tour 250. If this was a low ranked tournament (ITF under 25k) then I would agree but as this is an ATP tournament then this is a keep in my books. Matt294069 is coming 02:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tournament was part of the highest professional level in men's tennis, the ATP Tour. Meets the WP Tennis guidelines ("Any men's tournament is notable if it is part of the ATP World Tour..").--Wolbo (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wolbo above. This meets notability guidelines pertaining to tennis. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the WP:OSE arguments aside, it is/was (notability is not temporary) a tournament on the ATP tour. While it's a poor article, should be retained and improved by a tennis fan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Buhannic[edit]

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

Co-founder of a company of marginal notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article which is essentially a business executive's CV. The paragraph of text claiming the subject's pre-eminence is not adequately supported by the Forbes article about a transaction where a hedge fund selecting the subject's firm's product. Of the other references, the BestExecution item is a Q&A and the wallstreetandtech.com reference is to a site author page, nor does inclusion in a "Trading Technology 40" list appear sufficient for encyclopaedic notability. Aside from a few in-role quotations from the subject in routine announcements, there is May 2016 financial media coverage of events not mentioned in the article text, for example [35], [36]. I think these can be regarded as WP:BLP1E and are insufficient for personal notability. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and AllyD's excellent analysis. Just a CV, searches show nothing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thetoybank[edit]

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

This one's complicated. First off, there's Toybank, which, despite being basically the same organization, with the same name, in the same places, doing the same thing, appears to actually be a completely distinct organization. The only way I can find to definitively separate them is to search by founder, Vijay Goel v. Shweta Chari.

See sources provided on the stub and on the talk by the author. Some of them are patently non-reliable (like this one ~~and this one~~), some of them are about the wrong org like this one, some of them are okay, like this one, but are a bit fluffy human interest. These could be okay if they were a sampling, and an indication that there were plenty more sources available, but from what I can tell, they're pretty much it.

Goel is independently notable, but I'm not really sure this makes the cut. Their website lists two "members" which seems likely to mean "full time employees" and exactly eleven volunteers, and assures us that "Toy Bank is slowly but surely growing up", which looks an awful lot like a small non-profit run out of a few folks' homes, that hasn't... quite "grown up" yet. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vijay Goel with a small mention on Toybank, or vice-versa. This looks big enough to mention somehow, but hardly as its own article yet, and the confusion possible with another article makes it necessary to address that. Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

Please note that the Thetoybank in an non-profit organization working for past 20 years. I am currently a volunteer at the TheToyBank. I am currently running a collection centre at my house for the same. I am doing the same for social cause without any remuneration as I work with Yes_Bank. You may search (tarun khurana) the same from the reference link for list of collection centre^[1]. This organization has been setting up various new centre. The one in central Delhi was inaugurated by Maneka_Gandhi ^[2] ^[3].

This NGO was founded by Vijay_Goel in 1987. You can find the link in the Vijay_Goel wiki page also.

Thetoybank works with a motive of "Recycling Toys Recycling Smiles". We at [Thetoybank] collect toys and then send the same to a central toybank from where the same are provided to kids with limited resources across India

As a volunteer of this organization, I want to promote the Thetoybank across India so that more toys are donated and provided to kids who are currently deprived of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarunkkhurana (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would further elaborate that the organization Thetoybank is not a doing small work, it is reaching ~50,000 kids each year and has reached 500,000 kids so far since inception.^[4] The organization is frugal in resources as it rely on mass collections in schools and via its 29 centres in Delhi. ^[5] Further, it is currently working in various states like ^[6]

References

^ http://www.toybank.in/collection-centre.php
^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/A-toy-bank-for-joy-of-EWS-kids/articleshow/49018686.cms
^ https://www.vijaygoel.in/pages/in-news-393
^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/toy-bank-children-interview-read-now/1/722995.html
^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/toy-bank-children-interview-read-now/1/722995.html
^ http://www.asianage.com/life/more-features/200617/spreading-joy-with-toys.html

Comment-TimothyjosephwoodI haven't taken a proper look at the notability issues but you seemed to have messed up your external linking by calling the Hindustan times an unrelaliable source .Please take a lookRADICAL SODA^(FORCE) 10:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Stricken. Looks like I liked to it twice. Unfortunately I don't really have time right now to dig back through them. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was speedy delete G7'd. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Touring Car Championship (video game)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Swedish Touring Car Championship" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:NVG as a video game. Notability separate from the sport Swedish Touring Car Championship. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I request that this article be tagged for "speedy deletion". Nobody can provide any notability and nobody wants to contribute. The article in my mind stands as "dead end". If game enthusiasts absolutely want to discover information on this game, they can look up and search for the game on MobyGames.com. Yes, this game fails notability even though the sport it's supposedly based on is notable. I agree with you, GeoffreyT2000. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody can provide any notability and nobody wants to contribute." does not sound like you are assuming good faith in the slightest. It would be more accurate to say "nobody can find any notability". And notability is not inherited so I would not expect it to gain any sort of notability from anything it's based on._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, to satisfy WP:GNG. Most hits are passing mentions or directory entries, nothing substantial. May be there is content in contemporary magazines, but we can recreate then, since there's no real content at the moment. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Videogameplayer. Article has no notability, and does not belong on Wikipedia. People seeking to find information about the game couldn't find it on Wikipedia anyway, as the article has basically no useful content. Elliot321 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Edward Book Series[edit]

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

Non notable self-published e-books from non notable author. Fails WP:NBOOK Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBOOK. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails everything, would have gone for speedy delete due no to WP:NBOOK as well as advertising and no references. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 07:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Entirely promotional. Lacks any useful references. Candidate for G11 speedy delete. Neiltonks (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an example of why we need a WP:CSD for products. Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. There cannot be any argument to keep. --Ifnord (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Very interesting Wikipedia page good to read.
Keep, I think it's a really interesting to read the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.198.64 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the two !Keep entries above were both added by the same IP. Neiltonks (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable. Note that I have also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward and the Secret of VBS. --Finngall ^talk 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sesame Street animators[edit]

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

This list is borderline nonsense, with virtually no sourcing outside of links to YouTube videos, and hundreds of red links that will never merit creation as articles. The quality of being a Sesame Street animator is perhaps better handled by a category. bd2412 T 02:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All animation in the show was sub-contracted to others for simple cost efficiencies (PBS and CTW wouldn't have even got out of 1971 if they kept it in-house), so this is a forever unverifiable mess, and pretty much WP:COATRACKing a whole bunch of unsourced segment titles that for all we know could be made up of fantasy TV vandalism unseen. Nate • (chatter) 19:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily per WP:NOR Power~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nicholson Barney[edit]

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

Confederate officer who fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - I added a reference and there are a few more (~~but just snippet view for them~~). He possibly passes SOLDIER(5) for his command of CSS Florida (given the nature of the Confederate fleet - this could be seen as a capital ship for this fleet) and possibly SOLDIER(4) for his role in the battle of Hampton Roads. Beyond soldier, seems he does pass (~~weakly~~) GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Modified to Keep - further improved sourcing (with proper search keywords - he shows up in several civil-war books), and asserted significance of his role in Hampton Roads (he captured several prizes while the Federal fleet was focused on CSS Virgina). He is also listed as commander of the Galveston Squadron (briefly, before leaving for Europe) - which would further make a case for SOLDIER(5).Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets GNG, multiple references on google books, meaning there should be more offline. Kges1901 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. A New York Times obituary no less. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources provided are apparently not sufficient for notabiliy Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Chupp[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE mentions (including his recent hire as a junior hockey coach). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by winning no major awards, records or playing in a high enough league for long enough for presumed notability. Yosemiter (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [37][38][39][40][41][42]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Debatable, all those are from local papers where he either played or coached, covering that he has either been signed or hired. Such articles are typically considered WP:ROUTINE coverage of day-to-day happenings. Despite being from the local Lincoln paper, Number #2 is likely the most significant for GNG as it is not directly about him signing or being hired. If these types of articles were considered GNG, then even most Southern Professional Hockey League players would pass as they are decently covered by their local papers, especially signings.Yosemiter (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for more opinions/consideration regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and falls well short of WP:NHOCKEY. Deadman137 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Some routine sports coverage is not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources found. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Egyir-Paintsir[edit]

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

There don't seem to be many (if any) reliable sources that can confirm the notability of this person. All of the sources that the article gives are connected to the subject and appear to be self-published. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major figure in the founding and running of a significant denomination with 20,000 congregations and 3 million adherents. Sourcing will exist and the article does give us offline sourcing that doesn't appear to be findable via Google:
- Asare-Duah, Oppong. The Gallant Soldiers of The Church of Pentecost, (History of the Fathers of Old Whose Relentless Efforts Gave Birth to the Church). Accra, 2002

I also found the following book listed as the source in the bibliographies of the online biographies that do exist

Leonard, Christine, A Giant in Ghana: 3000 Churches in Fifty Years-The Story of James McKeown and the Church of Pentecost. Chichester, 1989.

Both of these sources can't be found in Google Books, but appear reliable and independent of the subject himself considering that he died in 1981. One of them is even cited in the text. This position is certainly as notable as many of the Catholic bishops I work on, whom we assume to be notable because of the extensive records kept by local dioceses and church historians. This is obviously a newer denomination than the Catholic Church, but all the indicators are that there have been reliable sources written on their history and that he has been featured in them. That is more than enough to get him past WP:N, because we do not require access to offline sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Nice job finding those sources :) RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The General Secretary of a denomination is likely to be as significant as a bishop in others. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like BLP1E applies here and no other sources of notability exist - WP:PROF apparently not met and the claims of notability by Onetwothreeip aren't supported by anything. Whether a topic about the event rather than the person would be adequate was not decided here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Heldman[edit]

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

Subject only in the news as an accuser of several Fox News personalities of sexual harassment, not notable otherwise. Should not have an article per guide at WP:BLP1E and per WP:Victim. TheValeyard (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator WP:BLP1E was considered but subject is claiming sexual harassment from a multitude of alleged offenders including several men unrelated to Fox News, thus negating being known for one event, as well as the coverage she has received as an activist for fighting against sexual assault and as a political commentator for Fox from 2008-2011, those are the other prongs of the article, all combined to establish subject's notability. Will continue to add to the page as it's in the infant stage and invite the WP populous to decide if article passes WP muster in it's present state and as it progresses over the next seven days. Final, as the creator of the article, will not be voting in the AfD process and will instead recuse myself for neutrality purposes. All the best and happy voting....Cllgbksr (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability extends beyond sexual harassment allegations, and is very typical of small existing articles of public intellectuals. Requires clean-up. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you will be providing proof of this assertion, yes? TheValeyard (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Off to a good start as a commentator on pop-politics, but GS h-index of 10 shows WP:Too soon to pass WP:Prof#C1. The remainder about media squabbles is WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete. Nothing out there (or in the article) to indicate she is notable as an academic. Of her activities as a political commentator and activist/self-publicist I'm not sure - searching "Caroline Heldman" + "O'Reilly Factor" indicates what she said on it sometimes generated attention. There might be sources there to indicate notability - but if that area is going to be explored for content the article is going to have to start to contain opinions others have expressed about Heldman and her actions (many are not flattering). The repetitive single-issue nature of the article's content as it currently stands is faintly ridiculous, suggesting professional victim - though doubtless the subject would "push back against" that assertion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search through the "Caroline Heldman" + "O'Reilly Factor" results, ignoring anything after March 2017. I don't see anything notable arising from her contributions. It is mostly non-RS blogs railing against her or her opinions - she seems to have been there just to be a talking head to give opinions that the producers know will rile up a large segment of the sort of dismal audience that watches the show. It's basically garbage media presented by garbage (O'Rielly) and with guest commentators who, if they are there to be anything other than garbage fans, know they are there just for the money. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF and WP:VICTIM and is currently a WP:BLP1E. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closer, based on the delete votes to one keep, as the creator I have no issue with early closure of the AfD process, article can be incubated in draft form in user-space, until such time it can be further developed. Cllgbksr (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage, outside the 1Event, to show they pass WP:GNG. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by User:Anthony Bradbury as WP:A7. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Droxity[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO Kleuske (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, for which I've tagged it. Based on the article, his closest approach to significance is attention from his own school's newspaper. Largoplazo (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.toybank.in/collection-centre.php

[2] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/A-toy-bank-for-joy-of-EWS-kids/articleshow/49018686.cms

[3] ttps://www.vijaygoel.in/pages/in-news-393

[4] ttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/toy-bank-children-interview-read-now/1/722995.html

[5] ttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/toy-bank-children-interview-read-now/1/722995.html

[6] ttp://www.asianage.com/life/more-features/200617/spreading-joy-with-toys.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]