Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 December	21 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I have discarded the non-policy based spa votes, which leaves us a preponderance of established editors putting forward policy based grounds (poor sourcing) for deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PureScript (programming language)[edit]

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. —cnzx 23:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The search links are skewed: with just "PureScript" they give much more hits and few of them refer to unrelated topic, if any.

For programming languages, the following is a significant channel of coverage, not NYT nor mainstream news portals (by the time a language reaches them, it's usually old, stale and technologically obsolete): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/purescript

Also, scientific papers about a cutting edge programming language tend to be in preparation or on the level of BSc or MSc theses, as opposed to established programming languages, where there is a lot of misleading hits, because then the language is used as a basis for extensions, experiments, or just as a minor tool, so the papers are not really about such a language.

I propose to wait and see, for otherwise, we risk a deletion/creation loop, with more and more arguments against deletion each time, but with less and less people willing to waste time creating the ephemeral article, even once the topic is very notable at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the search is skewed. Try searching with "PureScript" + programming (scholar, books). I don't work on PureScript, but I do hear its name often enough. For sources independent of the subject, see /r/purescript links. The first that came up was 'Purescript-web3 presentation by Martin Allen, Senior Blockchain Developer at FOAM' likely based on the ny-purescript meetup. If people are meeting up to talk about the language, isn't it notable enough? For a more academic sounding source, see 'Reactive Programming in the Browser with Scala.js and PureScript'. As far as I can tell, none of these people are directly affiliated with the PureScript project. Another reason one might consider it a relevant programming language is that it's mentioned as a AltJS language in job descriptions like this one. --Eed3si9n (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Most definitely keep. I didn't really think about a Wikipedia page for PureScript until I saw a tweet about it being deleted. Admittedly it's a relatively new language but already has a community of a few thousand interested programmers. PureScript is basically Haskell with some cruft removed and optimised for compilation to JavaScript. There is significant on-going community effort porting Haskell libraries, creating frameworks and publishing documentation. --Simgard (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Simgard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep PureScript is a language that is gaining more and more interest in the functional programming and the Javascript / Node.js communities. I'm no longer a professional programmer, and while I'm currently learning the language I'm not affiliated with the project. It is comparable to the Elm language, although it probably does not yet have Elm's popularity. It's similarity to Haskell and its support for popular platforms such as Node.js give it relevance from my perspective. We're beginning to see university theses on PureScript, e.g. https://is.muni.cz/th/374321/fi_m/?lang=en#. I think this is the first time I ever edited such a page on Wikipedia, so please let me know if I inadvertently violated any conventions. Sonineties (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Sonineties (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: PureScript is currently one of the most advanced, yet still practical languages, targeting the JavaScript platform. It is the natural step up for Elm programmers in need of more expressive power. While PureScript is quite similar to Haskell, it has novel features like row type ploymorphism, and a much more systematic (in a mathematical sense) standard library, based on category theory. Not having a Wikipedia page on PureScript would in my opinion be very unfortunate. I do agree that the page needs to be much improved on, and that the active, growing and passionate PS community needs to step up. copointless (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2017 (CET) — copointless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep Discussion in the scholarly literature seems to establish notability. LiberalArtist (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~

When this language added to the article (Timeline of programming languages), I deleted it at first because no article about the language!
Later I discovered that it deserve it's article (IMHO) using Wikipedia Guidelines.
So I started the language article, I don't know anything about the language, The team behind it, Never used it, I'm just writing for sharing the knowledge using the Internet resources.
(1) open source language with over 100 contributors and 4000 stars (Github)
https://github.com/purescript/purescript https://github.com/purescript/purescript/graphs/contributors
How many programmers in the world?
How many languages are used by very large number of developers?
Thousands of users for new programming languages (developed during the last 10 years) are enough!
(2) Used by many open source projects
https://github.com/trending/purescript
(3) Selected by GitHub team in (A list of programming languages that are actively developed on GitHub)
https://github.com/collections/programming-languages
(4) Provided as Haskell package too, Over 50,000 downloads from this website only
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/purescript
(5) Reference (Primary Resources): https://leanpub.com/purescript/
(6) Secondary Resources exists too

https://speakerdeck.com/michaelficarra/getting-started-with-purescript

(7) The article is a (Stub), Just keep it so new resources can be added along the time.

~~Magedsaud53 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sock —cnzx (talk • contribs)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So let me get this straight -- three separate sub-50 edit accounts popped out of nowhere and all decided to !vote keep? Even if that weren't an issue, Reddit, Indeed, Stackoverflow, Hackage, Meetup, and Github are all not independent sources, which are needed to pass the GNG. They are all user created content. —cnzx 03:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~This collection is done by (GitHub Company Team - Not user content) : https://github.com/collections/programming-languages Magedsaud53 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sock —cnzx (talk • contribs)[reply]

Regardless, that doesn't make it a WP:SECONDARY source. The language's presence in what appears to be an autogenerated list on Github also doesn't make it notable. —cnzx 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to list what, if anything, from above you do consider to be relevant. For example, there seem to be relevant citations in scholar, and although Reddit is not secondary, it links to several sources which might indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfin hamper (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Elfin hamper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The article fails GNG as the references are either primary sourced or blogs. Doing a google on Purescript did not bring about any notable references. Even though the language has a passing mention in Sitepoint which is not a reputable reference nothing suggests that this is notable. Unless the language gets significant coverage in tech articles this is WP:TOOSOON. Hagennos (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~How many references are required for the topic to be notable? Magedsaud53 (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sock —cnzx (talk • contribs)[reply]

Keep meets GNG with RS Chetsford (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't seen a single mention by name, let alone a detailed discusssion, in a single reliable source, let alone a number of them. The above arguments for keeping the article show evidence that the language is reasonably popular, but popularity isn't the same thing as nontrivial coverage in several reliable sources, which Wikipedia requires. —Kodiologist (t) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability guideline, as there is currently no significant coverage in reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 18:09, 27 December 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 03:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CB Hoyo[edit]

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

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST —cnzx 23:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft for now as I feel the artist could further grow in the near future. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not establish notability. Draft is probaby not a good idea as notability is likely many years away, and the article is too promotional.104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While striving to establish WP:GNG, this artist has fallen short. The WP:SOURCES here are problematic. At their worst, they are broken links; and to their best, they are subjective false flattery. Sources are WP:BADLINKS. Possible WP:USERFY. Ventric (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not at all meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 27 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia La Fortuna[edit]

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

(1) Notability - no discernible footprint apart from one 2007 event listing where their car finished 6th plus one or two inclusions in club listings (2) no independent sources anywhere (3) WP:PROMO (4) very poor quality material on page 23:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC) 23:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find only one external link, the same as nom: here. I do not find that this meets WP:SIGCOV. Ventric (talk) 06:32, 26 December 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. J04n(talk page) 18:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STS Partners[edit]

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

Not nearly enough coverage in article or BEFORE to show WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither as "STS Partners" or "STS Capital Partners". Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page could certainly benefit from having additional RS but there should be enough currently to establish notability. Also, the firm continuously ranks high on Barron’s list of "Best 100 Hedge Funds", which is notable in and of itself isn't it? Meatsgains (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCATALOG. No SNG I am aware of has such a criteria, and this fund simply is not recieving coverage. The gnews hit count is very low, and what there is is not in depth.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing entirely WP:ROUTINE coverage for this fund. They bought this other fund or security or they invested in that venture or they were a party in the other law suit. None of it is especially significant, and what is significant is not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP; just an unremarkable firm going about its business. When one sees a section on "Awards and honors", it's tell-tale sign that the article has been created with promotional intent, and that's it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while Wikipedia often has an anti-business bias, in this case there is just not enough non-routine coverage to fall under WP:CORPDEPTH Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The crux of the article rests in one link. I note the validity of the corporation, but not crossing the WP:SIGCOV threshold. The other links are of modest or self-described WP:OR. I agree that this may be WP:TOOSOON. Ventric (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 27 December 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 redirect to Language pedagogy. As pointed out we don’t routinely merge unsourced material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching methods of foreign language[edit]

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

Largely unsourced, and reads like an essay. Redundant to Language pedagogy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Language education, or possibly to Language pedagogy. This looks like a well-intended contribution from a new user, and it even cites a couple of secondary sources in its current state. It does seem to duplicate other articles, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is unformed in the fullest of senses. The English Language Learner is educated in multiple pedagogical methods. This should be expanded upon, and assisted. Ventric (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Language education or Language pedagogy. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not actually opposed to a merge or redirect, but given that this is almost entirely unsourced, I'm not sure what it would make sense to merge. And, it's an unlikely search term, so I don't see the point of a redirect (but, WP:CHEAP). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 28 December 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 redirect to Montgomery Township School District. As noted, we don’t usually merge unsourced material so that leaves a redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Upper Middle School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Has been previously nominated for deletion (and I think its time to revisit). The first time the result was no consensus and the second time keep. The Keep arguments were mostly based on the fact that it is a Blue Ribbon School. There are over 8,500 Blue Ribbon Schools nationwide (and some states don't even participate in the program), so I don't see how the award automatically establishes notability. Also, the articles contains virtually no sources (WP:OR). The few sources that do exist are not even about the school, but about the Blue Ribbon Award program. A search does not reveal any other claims to notability outside of the Blue Ribbon award. Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Montgomery Township School District per longstanding consensus on non-notable middle schools. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy." A check of Category:Public middle schools in New Jersey shows that this method was used for several other middle schools in the state. It's unclear why this was not considered as an option by the nominator. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alan, how about I didn't consider that because you opposed a redirect in the previous discussion. In fact, it seems the the reason for the last AFD because you refused to let another editor redirect this. Also interesting that you are quoting schooloutcomes when you completely dismissed it in the last discussion, you said "Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay. That's it and nothing more.". I know you like to take shots at me, but try to be consistent.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear that you understand either consensus or that consensus can change; I'm not sure what's gained by being arbitrarily consistent, any more than is gained through knee-jerk deletionism. As to "refused", the previous AfD you mention was in the wake of a mass change of the sort that disruptive editors like to impose on the community without prior discussion. Sadly, this pattern sounds way too familiar, even today. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a mere essay -- not unlike WP:LISTCRUFT -- that shouldn't be used as an argument for deletion, but rather as a guide of what has been done in the past that minimized disruption. WP:BEFORE is policy, but one that you have apparently never bothered to follow.

If you think that we're operating on a first name basis, can I pick a name for you? I have a few options, but one jumps out as my first choice. Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't patronize me. The previous consensus for this article was keep, that's why it doesn't get deleted/redirected without a discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Montgomery Township School District per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nate • (chatter) 00:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per all the above. John from Idegon (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Montgomery Township School District. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Gao[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR (the roles listed appear to all be trivial) or WP:GNG. I don't feel the only non-social-media reference, [1], qualifies as a reliable secondary source. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the person may seem notable, I believe that Google's index crawl has not yet penetrated the person's online search features. Here is a source that was found. ^[1]. Should we give it a while to see how Google ranks the search engines? There are many times when uprising stars are not shown until a few weeks later. PowEditor 02:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — PowEditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Richard3120 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject already has more than 20,000 YouTube followers. The film and TV series he (very) briefly appeared in were a year ago. Exactly what is suddenly going to make the subject more notable in the next few weeks that will cause Google's search engine to pick him up now, when it didn't before? By the way, IMDb is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content, and the Huffington Post article isn't reliable either as it is user-contributed with no editorial oversight, and written by someone who works in the industry of self-marketing, like Mr. Gao. Richard3120 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film and TV appearances are so small the characters don't have names. The other sources are not reliable sources. Notability just isn't there.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few references on IMDB are not cause for WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLPSPS. This does not meet WP:BLP standards. While he may be a notable actor in the future, currently he does not have the credibility for this article. Perhaps an example of WP:TOOSOON. Ventric (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR Chetsford (talk) 10:58, 26 December 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) 16:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I Need Trilogy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews that support notability Coolabahapple (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published, no reviews after 6+ years, no evidence of RS after a cursory look. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NBOOK Chetsford (talk) 10:58, 26 December 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained and cleaned-up. Per the discussion herein, I will add the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Am a Singer (season 3)[edit]

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

unreadable, COI The Banner talk 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest clean-up instead of a delete as the article brings relevance and notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also suggest clean-up but note that this page links to an entire wasps nest of other pages in badly translated English. Spikegray (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up – the translation is relatively understandable and shouldn't be incredibly difficult to rewrite to make sense to the casual reader. PriceDL (talk) 08:26, 26 December 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) 16:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Alien Noise[edit]

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

Per WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Comatmebro (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is tabloid-ish news. —cnzx 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An objective article would require multiple WP:RS rather than just a few WP:SENSATIONal ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention in larger papers like The Guardian. Per WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to have enduring notability. —Paleo Neonate – 04:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Dunarc (talk) 18:40, 22 December 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 redirect to Pascal (programming language). Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal-p2[edit]

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

This article is not notable. No references are included and a WP:BEFORE search shows only downloads and unrelated items (not notable for a Wikipedia article). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been up about an hour before being marked for deletion. I assume this is a robot marking for deletion. It's a work in progress. Chill out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiam95124 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read through the notability article. Pascal-p2 is a piece of software written in 1972 by Niklaus Wirth and his university group. It was the basis for many Pascal compilers, including many that have pages here in Wikipedia (a search here will show that). I created it as a SourceForge project because I wanted it archived as a software source that is important to the history of computing. It is referenced here in Wikipedia many times, and I thought it deserved a page on it's history and implementation, instead of just appearing as a series of links that go elsewhere.

Your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiam95124 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference section of the article does not conform to standards. The links are simply redirects to one website. Lack of validation. Lack of quality. Ventric (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pascal (programming language) (section: Implementations; subsection: The Pascal-P system) looks like the best solution if no more RS are found about this particular Pascal implementation. @Samiam95124: aren´t there some books/papers about Pascal-P2 not written by its authors? That would help to keep stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pascal (programming language). Still not that non-notable. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 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) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Massa[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO and poses some serious verifiability problems. All sources provided are problematic. The first mentions his name once in passing. The second is an IMDb profile that, given the tone, looks like it was written by Massa himself or someone close to him. The third is a list of graduates of the New York Film Academy but contains zero specific content about Massa. The fourth and fifth confirm that two of his short films received an "award of merit" from something called the "Best Shorts Competition" but this is not that impressive an achievement since dozens of shorts receive an "award of merit" every year (20 other films get the more prestigious "special mention" or "award of excellence"). I can find no other coverage of any depth on the web. His acting career is also not notable with parts in his own shorts or bit parts in little-known films. According to IMDb, his participation in one episode of Arrested Development is as a stand-in and is uncredited. In the article history, a user claiming to be his mom asserts that Massa is dead. This is unverifiable as far as I can tell and the claim has been removed by Racklever (talk · contribs). Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It aims to be comprehensive, and thus incorporate totally unremarkable people like Massa. Wikipedia has standards and is not meant to incorporate people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't verify whether this person is still alive or not. His social media [2] has no posts since June 2017, and a bunch of unsourced internet rumors suggesting he's dead. None of his roles suggest he meets WP:NACTOR, and I can't find any secondary coverage that meets WP:GNG. The "Best Shorts Competition Award of Merit" appears to be awarded to over 100 people per year and doesn't demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no details about his biography, let alone notability. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 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) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Suozzi[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN as small town mayor. Does not inherit notability from his father. Also doesn't help that the article is written like a campaign ad. Do be fooled by the number of articles in Google News, they are almost exclusively from local Long Island newspaper Newsday. Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. It reads like a campaign brochure. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think AfD !voters are going to analyze this article based on notability. I tried some copy editing, but without inline sourcing this needs a major rewrite. Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 22 December 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. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woojer[edit]

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

There's only some coverage, mostly puff pieces on their product. Also this is an obvious promotional article - WP:NOTPROMO (WP:DEL14) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add: puff in the article: Woojer has been granted patents for their small and powerful haptic actuator. and all I can find is pieces written by curated blogs - aka Forbes Contributor - or based mostly off press releases and what the creators say. Fails WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The company has been the subject at several technology's media outlets and appears to have enough notability. The only problem is the article's style, which seems more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. I deleted all the references to products and patents and tried to change the style for something more encyclopedic. The article needs improvement and not deletion.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  First of all, the media outlets only talk about the product not the company. And the reason it is promotional is because the articles on the product contain only what the company describes the product as and are based on what they say - thus failing WP:ORGIND Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Several media outlets make reference to the company and its founders.
Delete - This violates WP:NCORP and WP:NOTPROMO as mentioned above. Not every company with a successful Kickstarter campaign deserves a Wikipedia article. There's a lot of promises, not enough reliable sources indicating lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:CORPDEPTH; just an unremarkable startup going about its business. Clearly not encyclopedically relevant just yet; sources are routine announcements, WP:SPIP or otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, fails WP:SPIP. Also, no indications of notability, references are based on company announcements and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 27 December 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:G6. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rank[edit]

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

Both Kyle Rank articles have been deleted, no reason for a disambiguation page with all red links Joeykai (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 21 December 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) 16:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Junior High School[edit]

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

No evidence that this clears WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Only reference is to a primary source, and much of the material is questionable. Even the name contradicts itself. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but it has other problems too: "Nowadays, there is no definite mascot as far as politically correct reasons go except for a white star for The Generals". What? —cnzx 00:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schools below the high school level need to be shown to be notable, and nothing shows that for this school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 26 December 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) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callum McCowatt[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Plays in non professional league. (Same as recently nominated Dan Morgan NZFC^(talk) 19:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 09:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even pass the absurdly overly low hurdle of meeting the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 27 December 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) 00:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Middle School[edit]

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

No evidence that this disamb. page is necessary. The only contents that are dab'bed are a school that was redirected to its respective district per a deletion discussion and another disamb. page. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- page is useless, the two schools fail GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: under what rationale are you advocating speedy deletion? Failing GNG doesn't result in speedy deletion. —cnzx 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would be G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page"- The two links on this page go to pages are redirects because they were not deemed notable enough to have their own articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 Actually, there's just one school. The other is another dab page. G8 does somewhat make sense here, but we should probably discuss this first. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and who refers to a president by his first name anyway. I don't think anyone is calling Grover Cleveland School "Grover School", just like JFK Blvd is Kennedy Blvd, not John Blvd.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. —cnzx 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: non-notable schools get redirected to their location or school district, but where they are non-unique a dab page serves the same purpose. PamD 09:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G6. This is a mess because the 2nd entry "Grover Cleveland Middle School (disambiguation)" is a dab page where the subject "Grover Middle School" is not mentioned. It is not therefore a legitimate entry, which makes the page with 1 entry, and so G6. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above comments. Störm (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District which mentions the school, so it does meet WP:DABMENTION if it were to stay as a dab. However, Grover Cleveland Middle School is a different beast and not referred to as Grover Middle School. That would be like saying George Middle School should include George Washington Middle School. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 26 December 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 deleted as spam. (non-admin closure) 2600:387:A:15:0:0:0:BB (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congenica[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. I find no sources that are independent of the subject and rise to the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate promo. Achievement yet to be demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Many of the citations are to the company itself; the rest are directories and / or WP:SPIP. I requested a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only in business since 2012, fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 23 December 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. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traft[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. None of the referenced sources are intellectually independent of the subject, let alone rise to the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Unambiguous advertising; corporate spam on nn company of 100 employees. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK#3 I checked WP:BEFORE D1 Google news, and found a source in English, so I immediately know that there is no attempt here to determine notability. The nomination has said nothing about the statement in the article that this group is associated with a German company of the same name. The article reads well, and the nomination claims to have knowledge of what the sources say, without mentioning that they are all in Russian. The talk page is a redlink, so there is proof that there has been no attempt to engage with the content contributors to resolve problems before coming to AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In revision #816827114, ref 1 merely quotes the company's employee, ref 2 is an interview, ref 3 consists mostly of quotes by the company's employees, ref 4 is another interview, ref 5 is a profile of a sports team, ref 6 is also irrelevant. If you can locate better sources, please do. If you can do it without assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, even better. Rentier (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for part of the reply, but I see nothing in my post that leads to words like "assuming bad faith". Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is corporate spam; it is unfortunate that the CSD tag was carelessly removed since it could have saved us much more time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above. Ralbegen (talk) 18:15, 27 December 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. I think we're done here, for various reasons--socking, false representation, non-notability, etc. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Shachov[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography of now-blocked non-notable child actor, subsequently edited by sockpuppet. (Note that not all the blue links are genuine - eg "The catacombs" links to a 1940 film). The "37th annual young artists" source does not mention his name, as he is only asserted to be "nominated" and the source lists winners. Too soon, AGF-ing. PamD 18:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two "sources" mentions his name - he was nominated, but they only list winners. So perhaps this should be BLPPROD. PamD 18:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- AS per nom. Nominated for some type of award for appearing on YouTube is not notable either.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ✓The catacombs was switched to no link for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettafool (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 December 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. Consensus is that the Canadian Militia do meet the notability guidelines for inclusion of military units in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Militia[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MILUNIT. (MILUNIT applies to "National armed forces or branches thereof" and I don't think local volunteer forces qualify as a branch of a national military.) The useful content already exists at the articles about the active militias. Most of the online hits about this subject are from mirrors of Wikipedia. This article has been unsourced since 2009, which I take as evidence that no one has information on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly does pass WP:MILUNIT, as part of the Canadian armed forces. A useful page which links to and distinguishes the different types of militia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was the top level Canadian army formation from 1867 until 1940. Sourcing should be improved. Deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Canadian Army--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, per WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of reliable sources can be found by simply clicking on the spoon-fed "books" and "scholar" links above. This nomination is a clear failure of WP:BEFORE, in which the nominator failed to take a few seconds to check for potential sources but preferred to waste far more of other editors' time. Such selfishness goes against the sprit of collaboration that we are supposed to have here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 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) 16:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Talbott[edit]

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

According to [3] and [4], this person never actually accepted the post he is noted for. In a case where notability is borderline to begin with, it does not seem as though the subject meets WP:NBIO or WP:PROF. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Nom says, a couple of news stores state that Talbott withdrew for "personal reasons" and that the search for a director has been renewed. I am not seeing enough notability here to keep. He's young, probably WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no objection as one of the main authors I won't object to a deletion though I oppose deleting well-sourced valid articles on principle. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete executive directors are rarely notable. Brian Q. Cannon, who has been executive director of the Redd Center at BYU might be notable, but this has to do with his much longer record of academic production, and I would have to review how his academic production has gone over the last 15 years before I could say if an article on him is yet merited. Now a holder of the named chair connected with that institute, like Ignacio M. Garcia, would be notable, but that is a different story than the executive director. It basically boils down to research propels one to notability faster than academic administration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think the coverage shows WP:GNG is met and I don't see any real evidence of notability.Sandals1 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State v. Driver[edit]

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

I was looking at some old diffs in my contribution history for another purpose and saw this article. It is a little complicated so bear with me. It was created under the name Driver hearing in 2006. In September 2015 it was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driver hearing) with the discussion closing as redirect/move to State v. Driver and refactor/rewrite. An afd merge template was put on it[5], which is how it came to my attention in April 2016 (I was working through the backlog). Anyway I tried my best to follow the close, by moving it to this article and essentially rewriting it.[6] The trouble was that I could find very little in the way of secondary sources and decided that the article was probably not notable. I brought it up on the talk page (Talk:State v. Driver#Afd result) where one editor (TJRC) had already said they would fix it. They reiterated what they wanted to do, which even rereading now I don't completely follow. Anyway it has been another year and the article has barely changed. It should be noted for anyone looking for sources that there is another State vs Driver case that is much more notable.[7] AIRcorn (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the precedent this case set is worth keeping, even if another renaming is needed. I'm open to suggestions there.I would ignore that other editor that said they'd fix it, but just because they didn't doesn't mean this article can't be salvaged in some form or fashion. South Nashua (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It need to be improved, but it seems like the case may have set an important legal precedence in the state of New Jersey.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@South Nashua and Rusf10: An option presented at the previous AFD was redirect to Preliminary hearing. There is not a lot of room, but it may be possible to merge in a short sentence about audibility of recorded confessions. However that was quite strongly rebutted. Maybe Law of New Jersey would be a better target. AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary hearing and Law of New Jersey are too broad of a topic to cite this here, that's why I feel it's better to keep the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to put a sentence or two with a see also template, that's okay. But I don't think a redirect is appropriate. This article is strong enough to stand on its own, it just needs some TLC. South Nashua (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would still go with Keep, for pretty much the reasons on Talk:State v. Driver. I confess to being a little ashamed that I did not follow through and clean up as I had said; it pretty much fell off my radar screen. But, I think it's still a notable case and should be kept.

The other case you found (which is apparently State v. Driver, 88 W. Va. 479, 107 S. E. 189 (1921)) doesn't seem all that notable, but if it is, there would be no reason for it not to have its own article, and a disambiguation between them. The West Virginia case seems to be an early case on expert testimony, and I don't think it's gotten much treatment in the legal literature. I can't find the case itself, and the short references I find to it don't describe it in much detail.

I'd be happy to clarify my comments on the talk page. In a nutshell, I find the case to be notable because it has been covered in legal literature and made a lasting change to state legal procedure (which is why it gets coverage). My comments in the talk page were to indicate that it is the NJ Supreme Court case that is notable; not the crime itself, or Mr. Driver's trial, both of which seem pretty WP:ROTM. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to (or at least name) these sources as I have looked and not found much in mainstream literature? As to the other case I would suggest it is more notable because most of my google and other searches turned up information about it as opposed this one. It is the first published court case in which a psychologist expert witness' testimony was heard, which has implications for the insanity defense. This case led to a change in precedent in one US state. Would you be amenable to userfying it so you can work on it on your own time and it doesn't spend another two years in limbo? AIRcorn (talk) 14:42, 23 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

promotional article on non-notable businessman. No significance that can be separated from his business. ,except for his business, and that also seems dubious. The references are the usual PR, even if some of them are published in sources which are sometimes reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about notability, and even if it was, you admitted that the references provided notability via the business. Nonetheless, I attempted to remove as much of the promotional tone as possible, and I don't believe there is much of a promotional connotation anymore. If you disagree, could you tell me which part is promotional? Potatornado (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no admitting notability "via the business" here because notability is not inherited. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the main issue is how promotional its tone is. Is it promotional enough to merit deletion? Potatornado (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the "main" issue. Articles about subjects found not to be notable get deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then should it be deleted? Potatornado (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this discussion was created to decide. See WP:Articles for deletion to learn about the discussion process—how it's initiated, conducted, and concluded. Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the process works, but there was no consensus being come to. Potatornado (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought that the process was slated to reach its conclusion within a day, and that a consensus should already have been compiled and assessed at that time, then your understanding of the process is incomplete. Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete businesman lacking coverage of him to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the company - No independent notability. - Mar11 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Services need more discussion about which if any to cover.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not attempt to merge this article into this one? We can consolidate the notability. Potatornado (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom. Fails GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional spam on a nn entreprenuer. The company is at AfD itself and is likely to be deleted. Appears to be a walled garden that should be razed to the ground. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to company - between this article and the company's, there are valid sources, but not enough on either one to support itself. Potatornado (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, fails criteria, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:47, 23 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Services[edit]

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

Promotional article by spa on non-notable business. It might be possible to have an article on either this business or its ceo -- see the adjacent afd-- but having both of them is confusing us with a public relations outlet. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article would be more encyclopedic -- the company or its CEO? Potatornado (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Rune Sovndahl to this one. Mention of this company in some good sources. - Mar11 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- promotion article that fails WP:CORP--Rusf10 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- corporate spam and a promotional walled garden that also includes the founder. Delete both. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Promotional, consider WP:PRODUCT. Scriblerian1 (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge CEO's article into this - Neither article is supported enough on its own, but between the two, there seem to be notable sources. Potatornado (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam, fails WP:SPIP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and are not intellectually independent, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:48, 23 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Staudinger[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE due to lack of significant third-party coverage. Rentier (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NSPORT as a member of Germany's national team. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if there's an WP:NHOCKEY fail. There was a ice hockey world championship in 1994 which Germany participated in; he played 9 games for them in 1994. Kvng Merely playing in the national team is apparently not enough according to NHOCKEY Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Striking; according to this he did not play in the world championship. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng and Galobtter: He played field hockey, not ice hockey, so WP:NHOCKEY doesn't apply. The article is merely an advertisement for his consultancy. Rentier (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought that might be so. Seems like an advertisement; it's a translation of the de wikipedia article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of this and have not cited WP:NHOCKEY. I based my keep position on WP:NSPORT, "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Field Hockey is an Olympic sport. ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the highest level competitions are those listed at Field_hockey#International_competition, he didn't participate in any of them. Thus I disagree that the subject meets WP:NSPORT, and I don't see how a decent article can ever be written on him based on the sources available. Rentier (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a member of Germany's national team he played at the highest professional level, which means that he fulfils the WP:NSPORT guidelines. Significant coverage is given. HL2017 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — HL2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Sock vote struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete He doesn't seem to meet any notability standards or have the significant independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. As an athlete he fails WP:NSPORT because he has never competed at the highest level. He never participated at the world championships, Olympics, or even an adult European championship.Sandals1 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a player of the German national team, he competed at the highest international level, such as in the Four Nation tournament versus Pakistan. His notability as a hockey player is documentated by significant national as well as international press publications, of which a selection is presented as a reference to the article.--Kafl (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a national team is not a guarantee of notability. Lots of ice hockey players have played for their national team but had their articles removed because they didn't play at the highest level of competition (WP:NSPORT specifically cites the Olympics and world championships). As I said, there's not even an adult European championship appearance and Rentier points out he also hasn't competed at any event listed at Field_hockey#International_competition. The fact that field hockey is an Olympic sport, as Kvng pointed out, just shows that playing at the Olympics was a possibility and that WP:NSPORT is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While working through the WP:VERIFY process in the references section, I note a lack of actual linkage to external sites. There are WP:NOR issues, affecting the tenuous WP:GNG threshold; omitting also that there are no specifically cited Field Hockey criteria under WP:NSPORT. A more clearly defined authority governing international field hockey clubs may allow for better identification of notable persons in the future. Even the reference to his business involvement in The Conversation does not specifically list or name him. Rentier made a good call: this may be a weak promotion of his business interests resting on a non-WP:GNG-passing article. Ventric (talk) 00:33, 28 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of franchises that have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards[edit]

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

Contrived analogue to List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards. The EGOT for individuals has been discussed by multiple sources; this does not appear to exist anywhere besides this article. Also, given the number of people that can be involved in any part of a media franchise, winning four different awards isn't much of an accomplishment, and misses the point of the original EGOT: one person winning awards in multiple fields. Trivialist (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point on the first argument (with the exception of People's EGOT article, which we already talked about here), your second one seems to have no logic. Just because a lot of people are involved in something doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I'd argue that a EGOT for a franchise is harder, because it may only have one (maybe two) shots at actually being up for the awards, where people can be up for it as long as they continue working. You removed this section on the main article two years ago because "franchises winning multiple awards not as impressive as one single person doing it", so I built up the list on the talk page to prove hard it was showing how close some others had come. I finally added in February of 2016, and it stayed until September of this year, when you removed it again. I put it back on, since you were the only one against it, and you removed it after the talk page discussion which pointed out that the article was called "people". That discussion ended in a suggestion to create this article. I keep trying to add what I believe is meaningful information, and it seems like you are trying to remove this information at every step of the way. Elisfkc (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In case the above post wasn't clear. Elisfkc (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. EGOT refers only to people, not franchises. None of the sources are about franchises, nor can I find any. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this really depends on whether mainstream articles have been written up to describe franchise EGOTs or "franchise grand slams of acting". If the editors are synthesizing this information, then it should be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is trivia, but it is an interesting bit of trivia. It is not the case that every kind of compilation in Wikipedia must be a compilation discussed as a whole elsewhere. We can develop lists that combine verifiable pieces of information in interesting ways. The list is not indiscriminate, considering that we do gather people with the same credential. bd2412 T 04:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article for Wizard of Oz EGOT [8] and the four other franchises that mention it, but the rest is still original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the receipt of, for example, three of the awards can be sourced, I have no problem with mentioning those in the article. Notably, more people than franchises have accomplished this feat, which shows that it is actually harder for a franchise. As an alternative, we could have something like Most awarded franchises that looks only to total awards won without focusing on the EGOT aspect. bd2412 T 12:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list depends on a particular view of what constitutes a franchise. Is Wicked a part of Wizard of Oz? Why doesnt Woodstock merit an incomplete EGOT? These are questions which do not have easy answers. Is this something we leave to the experts? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There is no broad consensus that this is a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 28 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming[edit]

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

Another non-notable mayor. He was mayor for one year and none of the businesses he ran seem to be notable. He certainly doesn't inherit notability from his great-grandfather. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Notability isn't established as there are no indication of notability or significance (or any contributions) of the mayor. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the lede of WP:N, Wikipedia's notability is not based on fame or importance. Nor does a topic need to be notable to be covered in the encyclopedia, see WP:IGNORINGATD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman argument. Nowhere in Ernestchuajiasheng's comment do the words "fame" or "importance" appear at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and WP:Deletion policy are not strawmen, they are widely accepted standards. From the WP:N lede:

Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The strawman issue isn't about whether those words are present in the notability guideline or not — it's about the fact that you attacked Ernestchuajiasheng for saying something he didn't say. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please provide a diff. Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to provide a "diff" when the comment in question is sitting right out in the open on this very page? Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request was for my protection, but your declination is a de-escalation, which is even better. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Generally a New York Times obituary is a defacto mark of notability. --RAN (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having an obituary in the New York Times is not an automatic notability freebie, actually — the subject was a past mayor of a town inside the NYT's local coverage area, so having an obituary in the NYT is nothing special. Mayors always get obituaried in the local media when they die, so it's a type of source that any mayor of anywhere could always show. If the NYT graduated its reporting on his death to its news section, then there might be a stronger case for notability — but if it's just a blurb in the obituaries column on the death notices page, then no. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is there a "deletion freebie": a careful reading of this !vote shows that it makes no deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell ever said anything whatsoever about a "deletion freebie"? Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The usual cabal of advocates of turning Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of knowledge are coming out to challenge the well accepted guidelines on notability for politicians. These guidelines are not in any way, shape, means or form met for this article, and so it needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A failure of the guideline notability is not by itself a deletion argument, as notability is not a requirement for inclusion of Rumson mayors in the encyclopedia. See WP:IGNORINGATD and the policy WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability may not be a requirement for having his name appear in articles where his name is relevant to mention. But it most certainly is a requirement for him to qualify for a standalone biographical article. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And notability is not required for a 100% merger. Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what to where, exactly? We do not expand list articles into omnibus compilations of biographical miniarticles about people who didn't qualify to keep their own standalone proper articles — lists of mayors are maintained as lists of the mayors' names, not extended biographical dictionaries of the mayors' lives and wives and kids and deaths. His name can be mentioned in the list, if it doesn't get deleted too — but if he doesn't qualify to keep a standalone article in his own right, then he doesn't qualify to have the entire content from the standalone article maintained as a subsection of a bloated list article either. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "If he doesn't qualify to keep a standalone article..., then he doesn't qualify to have the...content...maintained as a subsection [of another article]", this is 100% incorrect. WP:N has an entire section explaining that notability is not a content guideline:

==Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article==

Shortcuts

WP:NNC
WP:NLISTITEM
WP:NOTEWORTHY

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.

Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "lists of mayors are maintained as lists of the mayors' names", it would not be a good edit to delete sourced biographical prose with the edit comment, "we can only post the mayor's names". Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, assuming the list of mayors articles stay, you can put the mayor's name and a brief summary (maybe a couple sentences). You wouldn't put the guy's entire life story.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such standard. Just the opposite, as it is fundamental principles that we are here to write an encyclopedia and that editors don't need permission to edit. The essay WP:Notability vs. prominence identifies this logic as a conflation:

Some editors will go as far as to say that because a subject is not "notable" that it should only be discussed in an off-handed or extremely summative way. Such arguments are actually conflations of notability with the undue weight portion of our neutral point of view policy....

WP:V and WP:DUE are the applicable policies for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it you contention that all mayors are notable? Because WP:POLITICIAN does not support that.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A mayor is inherently part of a larger topic covered on Wikipedia, so the policy WP:ATD prevails over WP:DEL8. To repeat, WP:V and WP:DUE are the applicable policies for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a mayor does not pass the standards needed to qualify for his own full standalone biography, then any amount of material about him beyond his name is undue weight. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a baseless restriction declared inside an AfD forum. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge GNG notability is satisfied. This is a topic who as mayor in 1950 is a subtopic of the history of Rumson, NJ, and who lived before the era of the internet. I have no problem if content contributors want to merge this article to suitable topics, including List of mayors of Rumson, New Jersey and Local government of Rumson, New Jersey and History of Rumson, New Jersey. As per WP:ATD, there is no policy-basis for a deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Announcing the death of a mayor in local coverage is routine and the NYT has never been considered the "defacto mark of notability". What matters is multiple cases of WP:SIGCOV, preferably nationally or even internationally.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why can't I find them for the other 20 mayors of this town? And why can't I find them for any of the other 564 New Jersey mayors for this time period? --RAN (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Mayor with no serious claim to notability. As a rule, mayors of large cities do notable things as part of the job; small town mayors, not so much. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "serious claim to notability"? Isn't that authorizing inclusion in Wikipedia to be decided by the preferences of Wikipedia editors? What is wrong with using our existing notability guidelines to base your arguments? Have you considered the policy WP:ATD? Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Produce it.
No.
There's nothing wrong with them, assuming there's nothing wrong with them. It had not come to my attention that guidelines on politicians had been altered according to the subjective opinions of editors to elevate mayors of minor towns to presumed notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no problem with many (most? all?) mayors having pages, given that enough is known about their lives that an article can be written with citations making the article verifiable, with citations independent of the subject and from different sources ensuring as much as possible that the article does not overly represent a single point of view, and the connection between citations used to outline the individual's life is clear enough that original research is not necessary to write the article. This article does, in my opinion, satisfy these core content policies. There are multiple citations in the article about the subject, so the golden rule/notability guidelines seem to be satisfied. I think that most US mayors from the past 100 years and many from before that period will satisfy our policies and guidelines, but I don't think NPOL should change to make these figures qualify, as I agree that there could be mayors where the coverage isn't sufficient to create a page which satisfies our policies, but this page clearly does satisfy them. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' It's the scope and breadth of media coverage about him that meets the notability standard, not merely being a mayor. Alansohn (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and there's nothing better; just a mayor with no serious claim to notability. I also note that he was a mayor of the city for less than two years. If it were 20 years, then maybe. Not notable as a businessman either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on nn subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 26 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobble Keyboard App[edit]

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

Non-notable app. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just advertorial spam and the odd mention in in-bubble trade magazines.

The article was created by a paid editor and has been edited by multiple paid editors and SPAs. It was moved out of draftspace twice, circumventing AfC, in violation of WP:PAY. A clear misuse of Wikipedia for promotion. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMO and no significant independent coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Product fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't the subject pass WP:ORGDEPTH? Economics times, business standard, financial express, DNA - all major Indian publications have a full feature on it not mere mentions. It is the second most used indic keyboard in India after Google.

Can this article be improved? (WP:PAID - I have been paid to edit this article so I wanted to understand the possibilities) Wikilover2604 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikilover2604: It would help forward the discussion if you linked to the articles you are referencing. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG. I could not find any independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on quotations from the company or its representatives) or has independent analysis or opinion. All others are are Primary references or PR announcements. As Joe Roe has stated it is advertorial spam Hagennos (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there is coverage, Hagennos rightly points out that it is not independent. In addition, the article is simply a promotional brochure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 December 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. WP:Snow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Namit[edit]

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

Non-notable "creative professional" who's only source cites Wikipedia and fails WP:GNG and all notability criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's passing mention in Hollywood Reporter, but that's pretty much it. Everything else is garbage, mostly user generated movie websites, which even if they were reliable (which they aren't), don't do anything but list movie credits. Nothing to write an article with, at least not yet. GMG ^talk 14:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Failing GNG and also likely autobiographic. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the the WP:GNG L3X1 (distænt write) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete might as well have snow for christmas. and as user name = subject name, suspect this was an autobiography. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others above. Nothing sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Also; please be aware that Rajkumar Pal123 (talk · contribs) has been trying to force the AfD notice off the page, edit warring to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 20 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranbill Tongco[edit]

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

Minor college player who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 20 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Lao[edit]

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

Minor college player who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 27 December 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 merge to Sibelius Software. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save Sibelius[edit]

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

Not a notable advocacy effort; the references generally don't discuss the campaign or are to non-reliable sources like message boards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The citations include reference to the notable BBC radio interview of notable composer Paul Mealor regarding the firing of the development team of the notable application Sibelius (software) by notable tech giant Avid Tech. The story was also published in the notable magazine MacUser and a page reference, date of publication and title is provided for this. While it is acknowledged that some of the citations are to blog type, it is possible to delete these and retain the provably notable and verifiable sources as mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdevelop (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Chrisdevelop (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

The Sibelius (software) application is the largest selling music notation application in the world, and has won the Queen's Award for Enterprise. The Save Sibelius campaign attracted international attention among its user base. It is of high interest to those with an interest in music notation applications, the issue of orphaned technology, and the ability of a user base to affect decisions of large corporations through grass roots activism involving primarily social media and IT. One of the citations is on Avid Tech's own website. Orphaned technology is the issue propelling the activism in this case, and a reference to this campaign was added in the process of propagating the article. An opening paragraph has now been added laying down the grounds for the activism, and opening the wider picture of foreign ownership of local (British) products and the effect this has on employees, stockholders, and ultimately its consumers.

Research is ongoing for related material to these wider issues. Have fleshed out the body of the article to go to notable issues, including Asset stripping and a more detailed background to concerns that gave rise to the activism in the first place.

Not sure how to change the article name, which might be better titled "Save Sibelius campaign"

Have to sleep now, having been up all night trying to save this article. Will continue research going forward if this can be held for a reasonable time.

Please leave comments on edits and improvements made to the article. Chrisdevelop (talk)

merge to Sibelius Software as I see no need to fork this off from it. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Sibelius Software, however there is also a page called Sibelius (software). On the same reasoning, why are these two nearly identically named pages allowed to exist separately? Does it make sense to merge all three?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibelius_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibelius_Software

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Criticism that not enough of the citations discussed the campaign has been addressed by the inclusion of the following links which directly discuss the campaign:

https://www.scoringnotes.com/people/avids-michael-ost-speaks-about-sibelius/ (paragraph 5)

http://www.zdnet.com/article/users-petition-avid-to-sell-sibelius-music-software-arm/

YouTube podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xxbYUIgBOg

several more citations have been added and improvements have been made to the flow.

The page has been renamed to "'Save Sibelius' campaign" to more accurately reveal the likely contents.

Chrisdevelop (talk)

several Categories have been added to the list, and two new ones created

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Further improvements have been made to the ordering of the paragraphs in the article and clarifying insertions made.

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Added ‘Kirn, Peter. (9 August 2012). Avid’s Sibelius Scoring Tool Marches On, But Without Its Creators, As Users Protest. Publisher: Create Digital Media (Berlin, Germany)’

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sibelius (software)- sources don't support its own article.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not primarily about Sibelius (software) or Sibelius Software, although links to it should be posted inside both these pages. It is about notable user activism against asset stripping, abandonware, planned obsolescence and orphaned technology in which pages links have been placed to the Sibelius example. This aspect would be obscured if it were enclosed inside a single parent article for Sibelius. Other examples given of Mosaic notation program and OMS would likewise lose their cogency inside a Sibelius only chapter. The notability of the 'Save Sibelius' campaign lies in the fact that hundreds of thousands of users were impacted, and while users often grudgingly tolerate these practices and cope with the associated costs of upgrading their equipment and losing their archival work, on this occasion they did not and went to the limits of their ability to change the parent company's mind. It doesn't necessarily count against them that they failed despite the intervention of the company founders, months of activism involving tens of thousands of emails to Avid Tech board members, radio interviews including BBC, numerous articles including MacUser, a public EGM called by BASCA and a 12,000 strong Change.org petition hand delivered to the general manager at that BASCA meeting, but in the Sibelius example, the owning company's actions provoked the creation of a rival application to its own best selling product, created by the very developers whom they had fired. Perhaps the article should be renamed again, so its significance is more generically perceived than being just about Sibelius.

So far as merging goes, we already have two identically named articles (Sibelius (software) and Sibelius Software) and it may be these should be either merged or renamed, since they both actually ARE solely about Sibelius scorewriter.

Chrisdevelop (talk)

This Save Sibelius article was originally a paragraph in an article being written about the notable activist and musician, Derek Williams, currently in the Sandbox editor, however that page has become unwieldy and this is one of three paragraphs to be snipped to try to reduce its length. The other two paragraphs to be migrated for the same reason are the one on Claud Williams and Auckland University Festival Choir which it is hoped will stand as articles in their own right.

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need comments by people other than Chrisdevelop.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sibelius Software. A bunch of content can be still pretty useful. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wreck of the Zephyr[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKS. No awards, very little coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~, although this book may be found not to be notable for a standalone article (although surprising that there aren't reviews out there with 1500 library holdings), as it is written by Chris Van Allsburg, an extremely well known and notable children's author/illustrator, highly probable that this book will be a wikireader search term. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above and WP:ATD-R. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Not only reviewed by the NY Times [9], but named as one of its "Notable Books of the Year" [10] and separately cited as one of the year's best illustrated books [11] in a judged competition with a rather distinguished panel of judges. Not to mention all the GScholar hits.[12] Slam dunk outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz... I looked for articles like these but somehow my Google Foo failed me this time. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Agree with HW. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion nominator notes that good sources were found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Doncram (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (have struck out my redirect), meets WP:NBOOK with sources found, thankyou Hullaballoo. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Cast[edit]

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

Obliged to take AfD for article de-PRODded by its creator without improvement. Non-notable product whose greatest claim to fame is a non-notable award from non-notable org "ictawardnepal.com". Other than this award, sourcing is to the product manual or a DeviantArt page (really). Fails WP:GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all Please do not link my relation with the company. This is from Nepal and I am from Pakistan. Secondly, This award is presented by Information and Communication Minister of Nepal . It is one of the most reputable Awards in Nepal in the technology presented every year to the Top companies. This is national Award for Nepal only that is why it is not presented in your country(I mean not global). There are lots of news resources available online about this award but these are in Nepali language that is why I have not added these.
http://www.bizkhabar.com/technology/29660.html
http://www.clickmandu.com/2017/08/26899.html
http://www.patharionline.com/2017/08/2109
http://ratopati.com/story/10619
http://newsnepal24.com/ict-award-2/
http://www.pahilopost.com/content/-37580.html
http://aarthiknews.com/2017/08/107335
http://newsabhiyan.com/news-details.php?nid=91231
http://saralpatrika.com/news-details/1874/2017-08-18
http://athaiprahar.com/news-details/605/2017-08-18
http://baahrakhari.com/news-details/34731/2017-08-19
https://dainikpana.com/archives/2048
http://kharibot.com/news-details/1046/2017-08-19

EShami (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- completely non notable and promotional in nature. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG. Sources re mostly WP:SPIP or otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman, This is problem when you even not taking a country's Minister as notable. Please read the detail. Also follow these Online Nepali News sites. These are news websites in Nepali language not WP:SPIP "Self-promotion and publicity".

http://www.bizkhabar.com/technology/29660.html
http://www.clickmandu.com/2017/08/26899.html
http://www.patharionline.com/2017/08/2109
http://ratopati.com/story/10619
http://newsnepal24.com/ict-award-2/
http://www.pahilopost.com/content/-37580.html
http://aarthiknews.com/2017/08/107335
http://newsabhiyan.com/news-details.php?nid=91231
http://saralpatrika.com/news-details/1874/2017-08-18
http://athaiprahar.com/news-details/605/2017-08-18
http://baahrakhari.com/news-details/34731/2017-08-19
https://dainikpana.com/archives/2048
http://kharibot.com/news-details/1046/2017-08-19

EShami (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources provide evidence of notability. Passing mention on news does not constitute notability. Article is WP:PROMO and fails GNG Hagennos (talk) 21:20, 23 December 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 merge to List of reported UFO sightings. With a nod to WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arequipa UFO incident[edit]

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

(1) article relates as fact a single-person tale of a sighting; (2) no reliable sources cited nor can reliable sources be found; (3) the tale has extremely limited exposure in reports/publications and has not been the subject of scrutiny in any balanced publication (one and only published source is by publisher of UFO Magazine with obvious conflict of interest); (4) no commentary addressing question of whether this may or may not be a hoax has been written/sourceable, thus this material is completely unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, being simply one person's tale (note (a) the reference to 1,800 ground staff seeing something not backed up by one single identified person's account (b) pilot reported to describe top of object as white in one report and blue in another). In summary, this is appalling trash and tends to bring WP into disrepute. Sirlanz 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems this is perhaps the only "UFO incident" in which there is a claim for shots fired. There is some LASTING coverage - Peruvian Jet Pilot Tells of Tangle With UFO (+Photos), Epoch Times, The only man to ever shoot at a UFO, news.com.au - and there probably are some more in Spanish. The article should be cleaned up so it doesn't relate to anything UFO-like as fact in wiki's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no mention of anyone else encountering the object. Being featured on the "History" channel is hardly an endorsement. A suspicious person might wonder if there was a need to explain expending 64 rounds of ammunition.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The amazing thing is that it worked. The pilot went on to serve another 25 years and made colonel. Seeems this is not a bad excuse.Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources that are objectively Independent of belief in UFOs (e.g. the Epoch Times is not a WP:RS), or WP:SENSATIONalized tabloid accounts, to rate a stand alone article. Could be a mention in List of UFO sightings if apropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per mostly LuckyLouie, whose actual investigation of both the content and context of sources is more needed in AFD discussions. Lasting significance cannot be prescribed to sensationalized accounts but rather multiple examples of WP:RS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of reported UFO sightings - worthy of inclusion there (using the news.com.au source for ref?), which suprisingly it isn't already, but not for a stand-alone article unless additional reliable sources are found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources--though I think Bushranger's merge recommendation may have merit, especially given Icewhiz's observation that this "sighting" is a little unique in the particulars. Certainly this topic doesn't pass muster for an independent article under GNG, though. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: bad deletion sorting – not an astronomy article. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss a possible merger to the list article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of UFO sightings, given the sources from Icewhiz, we can work it out without deletion. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 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. Spam from company account Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hostelman[edit]

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

Violates WP:SPAM as it is a blatant advertisement for the company as of right now, and the company itself does not seem to be WP:Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also, the article has no sources, and no other links other than the company page itself. Kerl126 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Also WP:COI and potential username violation of creator (raised separately). _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 20 December 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. – Joe (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwater harvesting in Kerala[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability here. It talks about "opportunities in Kerala" but no evidence that these have been exploited. Most of the rest is already covered at Rainwater harvesting and some appears to be copy vio. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rainwater Harvesting per ATD-R. Not notable enough to be a content fork. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there will be a separate section on Rainwater Harvesting dedicated to Kerala. Capitals00 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect to Rainwater harvesting sounds good. Most of the current content of this article isn't related to Kerala specifically, I don't see the lack of a Kerala section preventing a redirect as {{R to related topic}}. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redirect would presuppose some rather unlikely search term combination (but eh, redirects are cheap and all that...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't exactly see the benefits of redirect to a reader.Winged Blades^Godric 15:45, 27 December 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. DAB is obviously correct.And, AFAIK, these discussions take place at RMs. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 16:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Rain[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS. -- HindWiki^Connect 08:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not seem to have a primary topic, so a 2DABs is fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Patar Knight... no primary topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No primary topic, correct dab page. PamD 12:51, 20 December 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. Let's end this discussion before it turns into a full-blown buswreck. I'd recommend re-nominating the articles individually, or at least providing a deletion rationale that applies to the whole group, not just one out of nine. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edgware bus station[edit]

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

NN bus station, with the only claim to fame is that a Sunday Times journalist unsuccessfully attempted to be the "writer in residence". Nothing substantial has been added since conception in 2009.

Also nominating for non-notability:

Nightfury 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Finsbury Park, Leytonstone, and Tottenham ones per nom, and redirect the rest to List of bus and coach stations in London. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Lack of sufficient secondary sources determining notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you were to nominate the listed articles for deletion, then why aren't Aldgate bus station, Euston bus station, Heathrow Central bus station, Liverpool Street bus station, London Bridge bus station, North Greenwich bus station, Stratford bus station, Stratford City bus station, Vauxhall bus station, Walthamstow bus station, and White City bus station included in the list? All the articles I've here seem to be as non-notable as the ones you provided. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the London List. No evidence that any of them have standalone notability, and they certainly don't meet WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related question, what do we do with this template after the articles are redirected/deleted? 130.126.255.11 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template would then become useless and should be deleted in a separate TfD. Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect all. Nothing unusual about these articles, NN. Have called them bus spam in the past. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The Guardian source establishes notability because it says "Edgware Bus Station is one of the biggest bus stations in north London. ... One hundred buses an hour come through here, on 16 routes." It is therefore a significant transport hub and has been covered in detail in this and other sources such as Gazetteer of Archaeological Investigations in England which includes an archeological report on the place. The other bus stations are similar in nature and so presumably have similar notability. We should not delete any of them because they are significant and substantial topics and there are obvious alternative to deletion. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If adequately sourced it might be enough for Edgware bus station to pass notability. How are the rest similar in nature though? Are we presuming because one may be notable then they all are? Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't discuss the other bus stations in any detail. We can be fairly sure that WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed because there are obvious alternatives to deletion in all these cases. Consider the Brent Cross bus station, for example. This was a major development and there are massive plans now to develop it further and so there is detailed coverage in sources such as the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers; Shopping, Place and Identity; Architecture Today; The Brent Cross Shopping Centre Impact Study; &c. We naturally have an article about the underground station there, Brent Cross tube station, just as we do for Edgware tube station. When railway and underground stations are routinely accepted, what we therefore seem to have here is blatant prejudice against buses which is especially inappropriate in the case of London, in which they are a major transport service and institution. User:Ajf773 lives in NZ and so presumably knows nothing of this. Why should we casually delete so many articles on the opinion of people on the other side of the world who know nothing about the topic and haven't made any checks? It's absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My location is irrelevant. In fact I lived in the UK for five years and have a good knowledge on transport, particularly in London. Ajf773 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close WP:TRAINWRECK. Not only has the nominator not provided WP:BEFORE D1 reports for each topic, he/she couldn't be bothered to provide search templates for others to use. Is there even any attempt to determine if there have been previous AfDs here? For four of the articles he/she has provided extra notes, which is evidence that this is a confounded AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 26 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus Goth[edit]

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

Could have been speedy A7, but there are some sources in the article which IMO do not create notability but also should not be discarded. The author of the book has no Wikipedia article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, this appears to be an attempt to gain coverage for an unnotable book. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Essentially self promotion. Kb.au (talk) 10:00, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie Harlow[edit]

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

This diarist doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. The sole source is dead, and I wasn't able to find anything in the Harvard University Library program[13] under her name. There's one sparse paragraph about her in The Encyclopedia of Scrapbooking Tools & Techniques. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Though not famous, Harlow's diaries and scrapbooks are a rich historical resource for people conducting research on women working and living in the domestic sphere during the nineteenth century." As may be, but in the twelve years since the anon IP who "created" this article set that forth, it's not only unimproved, but no one's suggested how that qualifies the subject for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. Would add that there are no sources and that article is an orphan. We were more lenient with this sort of thing in the early days, but it clearly fails modern inclusion criteria. Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sympathetic to showing diarists as notable, but nothing suggests that Harlow is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 27 December 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. Already deleted by RHaworth as G11 –Ammarpad (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FXPRIMUS[edit]

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

FXPRIMUS is an online Forex trading platform which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. I cannot find in depth coverage in any mainstream reliable independent sources. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a one purpose account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely a commissioned work added in violation of the TOU. In addition, the subject fails WP:NCORP with none of the sources meeting the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH and many of the sources being WP:SPIP. Rentier (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 / promotional cruft on a nn online brokerage, of which there is a dime a dozen. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 22 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wali Khan Almuzaffar[edit]

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

I doubt he meets WP:GNG for the reason cited sources are not reliable enough and there is not nothing in Pakistani RS about the subject. Saqib (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe independent sources exist in Urdu language but currently nothing in my searches and creator of article should provide independent coverage. Currently, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bio exists in Urdu and Arabic language Wikipedias but the interesting thing is the bio has been created by the same user (who appears to have COI because he has not made significant contribution in any of WP outside this topic) and I don't see any reliable sources cited in corresponding Urdu and Arabic WP article and this giving me strong hint that bio is a work of self promotion by someone connected with the subject. The same user also created Council of Arabic Culture (which claims to be established by Wali Khan Almuzaffar) on English, Urdu and Arabic WP using dubious sources. Both the bio and Council of Arabic Culture articles are very promotional and should be deleted in my opinion, at least from EN WP. --Saqib (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student of PhD & I am working on Arabic & Islamic topics. its true that my work is very limited comparing to yours but that does not mean that my work is promotional. You can give me advice to improve my EN WP contributions. Saying that my contributions are very promotional is injustice. --Ahmad.alhashimi (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmad.alhashimi: You are welcome to learn the core content policies of Wikipedia at WP:CCPOL which says that any article which says that every article should be written by neutral point of view, and material must be supported by reliable, published sources. which means any material or article fails to meet the core policies, doesn't belongs here and should be deleted no matter what. --Saqib (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sami ^talk 08:34, 24 December 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 redirect to LGBT rights in India. The key issue is that this is a CFORK and content should all sit at LGTB rights which should include an intersex/Hajira section. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex rights in India[edit]

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

"Hijra" (Hijra (South Asia)) is the term that is legally, officially and socially used in entire South Asia for referring those who are intersex, transgender, eunuchs. According to all scholarly sources, there is no special case for transgender, intersex, because they are treated as "Hijra" in South Asia. A strong example is that we don't have Transgender rights in India but we have Transgender rights in the United States, because there is no special category for "transgender" in South Asia. This simple fact makes this article totally unnecessary and legible for deletion, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of a original thought, i.e. differentiating intersex with hijra for a South Asian country, that is contrary to every official and scholarly sources.

Now looking at the content of article, the claims about human rights abuses are already covered on Hijra (South_Asia)#Social status and economic circumstances, Gopi Shankar Madurai has been mentioned twice but a there is lengthy amount of content dedicated to Madurai on Hijra (South Asia). Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per below comments, the subject is already covered on LGBT rights in India, making it even more unnecessary to have this article. Capitals00 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant article. The Guardian: says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." Also supported by scholarly sources[14][15][16][17], there are zero sources that would claim that intersex are not Hijra, when it comes to India and South Asia. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK as well. Hijra (South Asia) is the main article that could be expanded, this article violates WP:CFORK because "content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject." Anmolbhat (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough RS cited by the article discuss Indian intersex rights as it's own distinct concept for this article to pass GNG.Rab V (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a source for supporting your claim? No it's not a distinct concept, and GNG is not applied on forks and original researches. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, like I said before these are all in the article, they are clearly labeled in their titles already. Check sources 3 through 17, 20 and 21 in the article. Clearly enough to show this article is not OR and to invalidate the claim in this deletion proposal that intersex is not a term used to discuss people of India. Also not a fork since according to WP:FORK the article should copy but change part of the material of the other articles. Though there is some overlap in topic, I don't see any parts that are copied with small alterations. This article also covers topics not in the hijra article, like the treatment of intersex infants and intersex athletes, enough to show again this is a distinct article. Rab V (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they are all Hijra, so write about it on Hijra (South Asia). Article is an original research and a fork because it could be covered on the main article but it was created by someone who was unaware of Hijra (South Asia), that article is better written and already covers better opinions than this. That is what the nomination is saying if you even read it. Avoid making WP:ILIKEIT argument. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I'm making an argument based on personal opinion, I am only citing sources and wikipedia policy without any indication of my own feelings on this topic. I am confused how this article counts as OR when there are RS cited backing all claims in this article, is there some confusion on what is in WP:NOR? Similarly, how is this WP:FORK when this doesn't seem to be mostly a copy of another article, instead it covers topics that don't seem to be in the hijra article? Fork clearly refers to articles that mostly copy each other. For example Lesbian is not a fork of LGBT, even though lgbt is a category that includes lesbian, since the lesbian article doesn't copy from the lgbt article. Rab V (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The seperate claim from Anmolbhat of content forking also seems untrue. Though intersex people are a subgroup of hijra people, the two groups are not the same. The articles are not "treating the same subject", the criteria for WP:CFORK. Helpfully WP:CFORK says spinoff articles are OK in Wikipedia and that seems to apply here. In particular from CFORK this bit seems to be about this exact situation "As an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genere of an aspect of culture such as a musical style." In particular, intersex rights would be like a subgenre of the larger cultural concept of hijra. Rab V (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy goes by reliable sources and all reliable sources say that intersex are Hijra when it comes to South Asia. That's how this article is redundant and a fork because main article had to be expanded instead. "Lesbian is not a fork of LGBT", wrong argument. Soon you will say "Dog is not fork of Animal." The Guardian says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." That's how, if any article has been separately created about eunuchs, intersex and transgender concerning South Asian countries, it will be redundant and violation of CFORK. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other? Would we both agree that dog is not a fork of animal? Sure dogs are a subgroup of animals but the fork wikipedia policy refers to copied content and not subgroups. That's why dog has a seperate article from animal, since it's not a fork in the wikipedia policy sense. In the same way, intersex people are a subgroup of hijra people, since not all hijra people are intersex. Rab V (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they cannot be differed in South Asia because they are Hijra and intersex people are already mentioned on Hijra article, which is really enough. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I think I get where you are coming from. There seems to be articles that do differentiate between intersex and hijra people, for example when discussing corrective genital surgery on infants which isn't an issue for hijra people in general. The question of if this topic is covered enough already in another article is trickier. Since the there is unique information in this article not in the hijra one that is supported by RS and specific to intersex people, I think it's OK to make the case this article can exist on it's own. Another way to deal with this unique information is to merge it into the hijra article, this is mostly a stylistic choice imho. Is it better to have this information all on one page or would too much info specifically about intersex people clutter the hijra article which is about a wider group? I lean towards separate pages when RS discusses intersex issues seperately from hijra, but both ideas have merit.Rab V (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked, Care to provide a source for supporting your claim? So far you have nothing to show. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to over 10 sources earlier but maybe the format was confusing. I was citing references by how they are numbered in article. For example, citation 4 is this one but all of citations 3 through 15 are specifically about intersex people in India.Rab V (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you can find better amount of material for eunuchs, transgenders. Still you won't find a source that differs them from Hijra. If this continued then someone will create Eunuchs rights in India, Transgender rights in India, and the small problem will get so big that it will not be possible to solve. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source I linked above talks about intersex issues in particular, not about wider hijra issues and does not use the word hijra. I think all of 3 through 15 are about issues specific to intersex people instead of the broader hijra community.Rab V (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a misguided nomination. The sources in the article, referred to by Rab V above, clearly discuss the specific issue of Intersex rights, without necessarily conflating them with the rights of Hijras. In stating that Intersex people are not a separate category, the OP is a) wrong, and b) themselves engaged in original research; it matters not what they think the overlap between the two labels is, but what the sources think. Furthermore, even if "Hijra" and "Intersex" were interchangeable labels in a South Asian context, that is no reason at all not to have a main article discussing the label, its history, demography, the people who fall under it, etc, and a spinoff discussing their rights in India. Vanamonde (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT? The Guardian: says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." Obviously they are interchangeable and not separate in South Asia. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete misreading of both my comment and the Guardian piece, so I have nothing further to add here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, otherwise it would be easier for you to stick to reliable source than making up your own opinion. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate article. (WP:CFORK) --RaviC (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination appears to be based upon a misreading of the texts. For example, The Guardian: says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." The verb “can” indicates a range of possibilities. If the concepts of intersex and hijra were equated in the article, it would have used the verb to be. Similar issues are encountered in the citations provided on the Talk page. Regarding the claim made about Transgender rights in India, note that Transgender rights in Tamil Nadu exists and Raymond3023 attempted to delete it in recent days. This nomination is misguided and may be politically motivated. Trankuility (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you modifying your own comment after they had been already replied? Because you don't have enough competence to understand the things, it is really not my fault or the nominator's, it is only your fault. You were always confusing Hijra with transgenders on talk page,[18] which shows your lack of understanding of these terms. You had been misrepresenting sources on talk page and it was taking you only 2 minutes to read all dozens of the sources that I was providing.[19] Before this becomes a conduct issue, you need to reconsider. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the letter 2 to 4 in my own comment when I read the additional citations. That is acceptable. I note you have just now changed the name of the article Transgender Rights in Tamil Nadu. Trankuility (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable because you can't change your comment per WP:REDACTED when it has been already replied, though for real you never read any sources, otherwise you wouldn't be marginalizing Hirja with transgender. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making personal attacks about another editor’s competence and good faith based on a trivial update to a comment is not appropriate or constructive. Please focus on the arguments, not the person.--Trystan (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the CFORK creator not to claim others having ulterior motives behind AFD in place of petty nitpicking. Raymond3023 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a classic case of WP:CFORK that would lead to the creation of more redundant articles. There is no need of a separate article just for writing 3 or 6 lines. desmay (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources to warrant keeping this article as a valid subtopic of Hijra. The Hijra article is already a bit on the long side, and merging this material back into it would not be desirable. Hijra could be updated to refer to this more in-depth article on intersex rights per WP:SS.--Trystan (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50k bytes are nowhere "long side". And this small article was already covered on LGBT rights in India like below vote mentions, there is no reason to keep the article. Also how come this is your first AFD participation since last 20 months? Raymond3023 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To update my comment: The content in this article isn't found in LGBT rights in India, which discusses transgender rights in some depth, but not intersex rights. In particular, content unique to this article includes: the Nanda source discussing whether Hijra are intersex or not, the discussion of intersex births, and the issue of athlete gender verification. A merge to LGBT rights in India (currently 49k) would be possible, though I think it works better as a stand-alone article.--Trystan (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda says intersex are hijra so you have got it totally wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification. Nanda also discusses intersex children raised as male. Given that her topic is hijra (which she defines as "a religious community of men who dress and act like women and whose culture centres on the worship of Bahuchara Mata"), she would have no reason to discuss intersex issues outside of that definition, like the discussion in this article of women athletes. That content isn't found in any other article. It's not a fork of an alternate version of the same discussion in another article. It's sourced. So why are we debating deleting it entirely from WP?--Trystan (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK says "content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts," Nanda in her book "Neither Man nor Woman - The Hijras of India", discusses intersex, eunuchs and transgenders as Hijra, but so we have, under the article of Hijra and LGBT in India and should continue, than having separate article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete already described on LGBT rights in India, not just on Hijra. LGBT itself covers concepts of Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex. We should really don't expect creation of POV forks like Eunuchs rights in India, Transgender rights in India, Lesbian rights in India, Bisexual rights in India, Queer rights in India. This article is factually incorrect and made in violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would be a good start. I would further suggest that all these newly created Intersex in (country) articles should be deleted or redirected to the main LGBT rights articles. Because they are all created by one user called Trankuility, a few months ago in violation of WP:CONTENTFORK because he didn't expand the main LGBT rights articles and these intersex rights articles are not important enough to have standalone articles. For example, much notable subjects like Gay rights by country redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory, while Gay rights in the United States redirects to LGBT rights in the United States, hence there is no reason why a less notable subject like Intersex rights in the United States should not be deleted or redirected. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and D4iNa4. Article fails all the points of WP:NOPAGE, and instead of helping readers understand the topic, we are creating confusions. Ultimately a small new article that is WP:CFORK of LGBT rights in India and Hijra (South Asia). Also agree that each of these latest article creations about "Intersex rights in country" are unwarranted and doesn't need separate article. Lorstaking (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. —MBL ^Talk 03:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rab V above makes a convincing case and provides more than enough sources for distinguishing between Intersex and Hijras. Should be an easy keep. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a single source that convinced you? So far none of them distinguish between intersex and hijra because that would be WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. All sources say intersex are hijra, including Serena Nanda who has written a small book and written a book called "Neither Man nor Woman - The Hijras of India" about intersex, eunuchs and transsexuals. You can read a few more yourself though.[20][21][22][23][24] Raymond3023 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Rav V points out, there are sources that discuss intersex issues as distinct from hijra issues (see their comment above). Given that Hijra is an important India centered issue, and intersex is an important global issue, and that there are distinct issues regarding each of them, it makes sense to have two different articles. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them do, that's why I asked you to provide a single source. Just because they discuss about intersex, just like millions of more sources discusses about gays, transgenders, it doesn't means they are distinguishing them with Hijra. And like D4iNa4 has mentioned that these articles were created hardly a few months ago in place of expanding the main LGBT articles, there should be wholesale deletion of them if anything. It makes no sense to have different articles on a subject already covered on rather small articles like LGBT rights in India and Hijra (South Asia). WP:CFORKs are not allowed. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Raymond, all of the sources in question make it clear that intersex individuals may be referred to by the collective term "Hijras", but that all Hijras are definitely not intersex individuals. Intersex individuals, in other words, are a subset among Hijras. Looking even at the sources you provided: "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender" [25], "includes individuals who may be eunuchs, intersex, or transgender" [26], "Hijra, the collective term for transgender people, eunuchs, and the intersex" [27], "It is important to acknowledge that transgender/transsexual people and intersex people are not facing the same forms of discrimination" [28] (emphasis mine). If you go on insisting that the terms are equivalent based on a misreading of the sources, expect me to seek a topic-ban for you, as your edits are disruptive. Vanamonde (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is misreading. Raymond has said "intersex are hijra",[29] while you are saying that he said all hijras are intersex? You seem to WP:NOTGETTINGIT. All reliable sources and official sources treat intersex, eunuchs, and transgenders as hijras. That's an undeniable fact unless you are seeking creation of Transgender rights in India, Eunuchs rights in India. Capitals00 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, I didn't said that terms are equivalent, I only said that they fall under the branch of Hijra in whole South Asia, and that's what all sources said too, that's why WP:CFORKs should not be made, because main article could be expanded instead. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. From above: "Obviously they are interchangeable and not separate in South Asia. Raymond3023 (talk) 8:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)" (emphasis mine). I will say no more. Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly interchangeable when it comes to only these two terms. Though intersex are referred as Hijra while Hijra can be either intersex or eunuch or transgender in South Asia. It is not like a intersex is not a Hijra, and that's what I meant. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Comparing the article with Hijra (South Asia) and LGBT rights in India (especially the latter), as well as the sources provided by the other "delete" editors, make it clear, IMO, that this article violates WP:CFORK. Since we already have an article that completely overlaps with this one, this article should be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is notable and needs to be expanded on, not gotten rid off. Not every person who is intersex in India will identify or be treated as a Hijra. Intersex is manly a subject about medical conditions.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-notable subject and because it's a content fork, it has to be eliminated. Intersex are identified as Hijra and receive welfare as third gender in South Asia. Let's analyze the notability:

Only 2,125 results in Google, all are mirrors of Wikipedia.
Zero results in Google books.

Can you compare that with LGBT rights in India? There no evidence of notability for this subject. Lorstaking (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per D4iNa4 and per Lorstaking . The term used legally and commonly used in India is Hijra particularly in Indian languages including Hindi Language and term intersex does appear not an equivalent in Indian languages or used widely Hindi term Hijra हिजरा gets 31,90,000 results and and is indistinguishable in the Indian context.Supreme Court of India in 2014 judgement views them as part of Third gender . Full judgement National Legal Ser.Auth vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2014 and there is no separate legal classification of intersex ,or cultural clasification or separate rights for them and there rights are only part of Hijra or third Gender.Hence view it as a WP:CONTENTFORK.Do not see any rights unique or specific to Intersex but not to Hijra. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CFORK. What content in the article is specific to "Intersex rights in India" but not Hijra? Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Rights of Hijras in South Asia and move all mention of issues faced by Hijras to this article from the original. I debated with a couple of editors on the article, and I was initially against a redirect. My opinion was that this article should stay as a standalone as there are other article such as LGBT rights in "(country)" and I was of the opinion that as all intersex are not trans or gay, they should have a separate article. However upon further reading into the issue I have come to the conclusion that the word Hijra does equate to "intersex" hen we are reading it in a south asian context. The term is unique to India so its meaning may not be clear to all without soem further reading. The Keep! votes are generally from editors who are fo the view that intersex individuals are not considered to be Hijras. I have to disagree with them. They have said that intersex in India is seprate from Hijra, but reliabel sources such as [30] disagree. Rab V has given the opinion that some sources in the articles are clearly mentioning intersex as an entity. My comment on this is that Hijra is a macro term, an umbrella term, so if a person is intersex, trans or cross dressing, they will be all mentioned as Hijra. However this does not mean that there will be NO SOURCES that mention intersex separately. Existence of such sources is not debated, and we do not argue against that, but thier existence does not mean that intersex people are not Hijra. Any source that states that "intersex" are not called "Hijra" in India can be used to argue against me, but lacking such a source where it is written that "intersex" in India are "NOT" included in "Hijra", your argument does not hold water. Another Keep! vote if from Vanamonde who has made the argument that first of all, intersex is not covered by Hijra and even if they are, a separate article should exist about thier rights. I disagree with the first premise and agree with the second. However if we have an article about rights, it should be rights of all Hijra, so it should be rights of Hijra, instead of rights of intersex. As there is no umbrella term for intersex+trans+crossdressers in any other language, we can have separate articles about rights of trnas and intersex in other countries, but as Hijra is an umbrella term, we should have one article about India. Trankuility has made the argument that as the source says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." then the word "can" equates to Hijra being other than intersex. This argument is flawed, for the Delete! votes never state that 'ALL' Hijra are intersex, rather that all "intersex" are Hijras. So without reliable sources writing that "Hijra" and "intersex" are different, concluding that they "must be different" is WP:OR. Elektricity (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elektricity: You are misreading my argument. I have not, at any point, stated that Intersex individuals are not Hijras. I have stated that Intersex individuals are a subset of Hijras (a fact attested to by the sources) and that therefore the terms are not interchangeable. To put it another way, there are Hijras who are not intersex. Therefore, if there are reliable sources (and there are) discussing "intersex rights" specifically, we cannot simply lump that into "Hijra rights". Vanamonde (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde All groups that are subsets of larger groups are "lumped" in those larger groups. A specific example in this context is homosexuality, both male and female. We do not have Gay Rights and Lesbian rights, rather we have LGBT rights. The same is true here; in India Trans and intersex, along with cross dressing is under Hijra, so just as LGBT pages lump gays and lesbians in one group, even though there are studies (lots of them in fact) that discuss rights of gays and lesbains individually, similarly, we can lump intersex with Hijra. Elektricity (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--CFork.Clean and clear.Winged Blades^Godric 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why delete and not merge? This article has content on intersex births and gender verification of athletes that is not in LGBT rights in India or Hijra (South Asia). What is the advantage of getting rid of that well-sourced content entirely, rather than merging it into one of the broader topic articles?--Trystan (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Eunuchs rights in India, Transgender rights in India, Lesbian rights in India, Bisexual rights in India, Queer rights in India and more are redlinks, that's why Intersex rights in India also deserves to be a redlink per WP:NPOV :)

Anyway, it is also believed that redirects/merges sometimes leads people to create POVFORKs that's why they shouldn't be created without a strong reason which is lacking here. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latter four of those links would all be valid and helpful redirects to LGBT rights in India.

So far you are the only editor that has made the accusation that this was a bad-faith WP:POVFORK rather than a WP:CFORK. Given that LGBT rights in India did not include intersex individuals in its scope when this article was created, and this article was created as part of a series, I don't think there is any evidence of bad faith. If it is a CFORK, the appropriate remedy is to merge, per WP:CFORK.--Trystan (talk) 21:47, 27 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article (company)[edit]

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

unimportant company, sources are basically PR The Globe and Mail article is a barely disguised advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should have more sources; however, I feel like the statement above is over-exaggerated. Many similar competitors also have articles, such as South Shore Furniture and Stanley Furniture. Daylen (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A company does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because some of its purported competitors have Wikipedia articles — those articles may need to be deleted too, and just hadn't been noticed until you pointed them out. Backfire in the hole, baby. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at least one of those two other articles mentioned is of equally dubiousnotability. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, just a private company going about its business. Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. Rentier (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improved citations, adding secondary sources for facts and figures in the article. Accolades have also been added to assert Article's position as a relevant e-commerce company. Providing another example of recent coverage supporting the relevance of Article in Canadian tech culture: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-canadian-tech-startups-that-could-be-the-next-billion-dollar-breakouts/97.107.183.52 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per K.e.coffman above and lack of notability. Otr500 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to DGG, K.e.coffman, Otr500 re: WP:NCORP

The Depth test appears to be satisfied, given that the sources and depth of coverage is substantial, and that little to none can be considered an exception as described in the Depth of Coverage section.

The Audience test appears to be satisfied, given that the sources are highly varied, ranging from national news coverage in the USA and Canada to regional coverage, like that in Vancouver and Jacksonville.

The Independence of Sources test appears to be satisfied, given that all sources are independent of the organization. Furthermore, nearly all of the source material appears to be "non-trivial, non-routine works", which further supports the notability of this organization.

In response to Rentier re: WP:NOTADVERTISING

As written, it appears to include only verifiable information derived from independent sources, and is presented in a neutral, factual tone. It does not appear to violate any of the WP:PROMOTION content flags.97.107.183.52 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam and the worst for it. Corporate portfolios need to be kept where they belong, spam. Easy and simple. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to "HighKing", "Hey you, yeah you!":

When cross-referenced with GNG guidelines, all tests appear to be satisfied, with the one possible exception noted below:

Significant Coverage - almost all cited sources address the topic directly and in detail, appearing to satisfy this test. Sources are varied, and include TV, web, and possibly print coverage in a variety of mainstream and secondary publications.

Reliable - almost all sources meet this criteria. It could be argued that the "vff.vc" source fails this test, but otherwise this test appears entirely satisfied.

Sources - all, with the possible exception of "vff.vc", are secondary sources, which appear to satisfy this test.

Independent of the subject - all, with the possible exception of "vff.vc", are secondary sources, which satisfies this test.

Presumed - the above satisfies this test, supporting the "assumption for inclusion".

When sources are cross-referenced with WP:ORGIND, all tests appear satisfied, with the one possible exception noted below:

it could be argued that "vff.vc" source fails one or more tests, but that leaves 16 other sources appearing to satisfy all tests.

It should be noted that venture capital funds in Canada are subject to securities laws, which govern public disclosures. This would lend support to the independence of "vff.vc" sourced material.97.107.183.52 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Nope. You don't appear to understand the meaning of "independent of the subject". It doesn't mean that the company and the publisher have no relationship. It means that the content is intellectually independent and that the content doesn't rely on corporate communications (such as company announcements, interviews with CEOs, founders, etc or connected personnel or stories that rely extensively on quotations without providing any independent analysis and/or opinon). For example, this cnbc reference fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies exclusively on an interview with the founder and does not provide any independent analysis or opinion. Similarly the other articles. None meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arguing that there is purported competitor company which also have article is clear declaration of misusing Wikipedia for advertising purposes against core policy. Ammarpad (talk) 12:06, 26 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-Novae Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I nominated it for speedy deletion but administrator SoWhy declined on the grounds that it might be merged into Infinity (upcoming video game), seeing as how the majority of the sources in this article are about that subject. But on close inspection, I see nothing worth merging. Still, that's just my opinion for now. Is it yours too? Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect/delete and redirect is reasonable here. The game looks notable but I don't see anything to indicate the studio is. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Redirect would also be fine. -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 20 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-Novae (game engine)[edit]

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

This article about a non-notable, unreleased and dead-on-arrival project is probably written by person with close connection and intimate knowledge of it. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO applies with the article totally sourced from the dev's site._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With the changes to the project, and the death to the original website, the article is both out of date and also no longer accurate. The project still exists but not in the form as described, and while many of the capabilities are the same, the details are now likely wrong. A hatchet should also be taken to Infinity_(upcoming_video_game), focusing instead on Infinity Battlescape, which is the cut down reality of the project. The Plot, Gameplay and Infinity Combat Prototype sections are no longer relevant._{Disto~enwiki (TALK)} —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/delete and redirect to the video game. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game engine, no indepth coverage. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 20 December 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. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Kordestani[edit]

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

Kordestani is not at all notable as a CEO (his "Milan Farms" appears to be a hobby operation selling very limited quantities), nor as a writer (can't just about anyone get a HuffPo byline?). He might eventually be marginally notable as an equestrian, but to date his competitions appear to be at the junior level. Because of his parents' money, he gets to ride some impressive mounts, but I think the coverage he receives are as much about the horse than the rider. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamzaramzan123 sockpuppets

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with varying references from unbiased magazines publishing news about his successes as an equestrian. Also, definitely meets WP:ANYBIO given he holds world and state titles. To become a Huffington Post writer also requires approval from Arianna Huffington and an extensive application making a writer such as himself, accomplished. Also, his articles have been promoted by the site and in other countries, making them more notable. His achievements as a CEO are notable because he made strides in the agriculture industry and conducted research in this industry at a very young age, making him notable.PeakTime (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC) — PeakTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. To address concerns, I have found articles, and sources conveying the achievements of Kordestani as an equestrian. He holds major titles which in the American Saddlebred industry are highly regarded. Additionally, I have found information about Milan Farms and have cited and added information to his research in the sector of hydroponics. Initially the company seems to be small time, but when you do research into it, the company isn't small, but rather it connects small farms together. The company doesn't own multiple farms but rather focuses on the connection of small farmers to empower them. That may be why it gives the appearence of being small.PeakTime (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everything seems in order and well referenced. He doesn't seem significant in my world but if he's ranked even in the top 5 in any industry and is also an up and coming CEO, I think he deserves an article. Also, there are references which means that WP:GNG is not broken and since he's been on the cover of magazines for WP:ANYBIO recognizing his significance, I think he's someone worth keeping on the page.HeadCount (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — HeadCount (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - If you follow all of the changes, all of the issues that were originally found with this have been addressed and solved. There are refferences to everything, quotes from interviews, magazine publishings, details on his life/career, etc. The page is justified and all of the problems have been solved.JDowny (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — JDowny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Seems like the person who suggested to have this page removed has it out for the person given he's from a wealthy background. Seems like a personal issue rather than an unbiased one. This page has no issues and is well cited. It should be kept as is. Please keep personal issues out of Wiki.MasterPiecess (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — MasterPiecess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note: The four keep votes are all made by the same person using sock accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachna440. They are Unrelated to the creator of the article, although the creator is also a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 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 redirect to Freedom Call#Discography. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to Fairyland[edit]

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

This seems to be an entirely non-notable recording; when I came across it as a new pags reviewer I changed it to a redirect to the band. This has been undone a couple of times (and redone by another editor)... seeking a broader consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a non notable recording and as this is now an edit battleground by POV pushers it should be deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had left a note on my talk page, suggesting to improve this article, which is exactly what I've started to do. Would you kindly explain what do you imply by "POV pushing", exactly? СССР (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the POV that this is a notable album. At the time the note was left this article was very poorly sourced, it is not just poorly sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article has been expanded and referenced just prior to this nomination. СССР (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion is irrelevant; the sources niche. Putting it kindly.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freedom Call and protect the redirect. The sources listed in the article are not suitable for establishing notability. I would also be okay with "Delete & redirect". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting please stay on topic, cite policy and or guidelines where ;possible and be brief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - plausible search term, and sources can confirm its existence/name at least, but there's not enough here to establish notability. Most sources added to article are obscure music blogs or already classified as unreliable. (Like Sputnik Music user written reviews, which violate WP:USERG, per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 21 December 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. Although there was a small numerical majority in favour of deletion, many of these !votes cited surmountable problems (e.g. overly broad criteria for inclusion, problems with the article title) and deletion is not cleanup. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of unlawfully killed transgender people[edit]

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

This article does not provide any reasons of its notability to be a list. Sure there are many references which link to the individual murders, but no references that support the fact that this article is a list which should be notable.
As it stands, this article fails what Wikipedia is not:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. There is no reason why this article should exist and "List of unlawfully killed football players" shouldn't.
Furthermore, the article does not cite if any of the people murdered were victims because of their transgender, which makes it seem that this article is a compendium of people "A" that have been done "B".
This also fails by WP:YELLOWPAGES (another what Wikipedia is not), #6 "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Wikipedia is not a directory for these kind of topics. Cheers. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't find any assertion in the article of why this topic is notable, or why a list is anything other than indiscriminate. I feel like this is nibbling at the edges of an actual topic, such people who were killed because they were trans, which may be a possible redirect should someone be willing to put in the work. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these same arguments were addressed in the previous nomination for deletion which resulted in a keep. There are many reliable sources about murders of trans people as a concept in both the news (for example NYT, Vice, Washington Post, Newsweek, The Independent) and in scholarly articles (for example these articles). This shows that this article passes GNG. Note reliable news sources often compile similar lists to discuss this topic (two examples.) The intro doesn't use sources well to explain the relevance of this topic, but WP policy state "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Similarly, whether the list's scope should be murders definitely linked to transphobia or about the broader topic of transgender murders, that is a discussion that should be hashed out in the course of editing and isn't a reason for deletion. Rab V (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, violence against trans people because they are trans is heavily covered in media and academic sources, but that's not this article. That murders are covered in the news isn't indicative of GNG. That violence against particular groups is covered in the news doesn't mean it meets GNG. There is not assertion of notability in the article. It's indiscriminate, which is to say that you could make this list with literally any group of people, endlessly, with no apparent overarching point. The two features of the article, that these people are trans, and that they died unlawfully, is not connected in anyway. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this should be a more pruned list to only include people killed because they are trans, that would only require editing down the list and so shouldn't be a cause for deletion. The academic and news sources I listed above about trans murders also discuss trans murders as something that is caused by many overlapping factors not just transphobia, showing that the topic as is is covered in many RS. The articles discuss many reasons why being trans correlates with violence. In particular, GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" and that certainly seems to be the case here. The reason this wouldn't lead to indiscriminate lists of people is, for example, a list of murdered football players may have articles about individual deaths but editors may not be able to find enough RS about the overall topic of murdered football players. The idea that the overall topic must be covered by RS is laid out in WP:LISTN. Please note that all the sources I provided were not about individual instances but the overall topic. Rab V (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has a reliable source they are allowed to create stat book on Wikipedia? Notability is a thing. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the fix in this case would be to provide more context about these murders where supported by RS. The lack of an intro here is an issue but fixable since there are enough RS on the general topic of trans murders. And the entry on Amanda Milan is a good example of where this article does well, giving plenty of context about her murder and it's political aftermath. Rab V (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. There is no point in having a list about non-notable incidents that are mostly written in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above "keep" !vote and the previous AfD. Individual entries may be debatable, but the concept of the list is legitimate. Media and academic coverage more than adequately establishes the topic as a subject of study; collecting examples is the opposite of indiscriminate. There's no cross-categorization when the available RS already establish the category. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legitimate list subject. reliable sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the list as it stands is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there are enough blue links to make something that's a more normal WP:SAL that's fine, but Wikipedia is not for martyrology or hagiography. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by others above and also because it's too vaguely defined: e.g., does someone need to have publicly self-identified as transgender to be included or does it include people who are speculatively considered transgender by some sources? List pages like this tend to become a grab-bag of poorly sourced and dubious claims. The strange title is a bit of a red flag : if an article has such an awkward title ("unlawfully killed"? You mean murdered? Or are we including something else here?) it's just another indication that the list is poorly defined and likely to get out of hand. GBRV (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. List criteria should be established on the list page - e.g. a list of notable murders of transgender people (where notable = wiki article, and transgender is reliably sourced) should pass WP:LISTN. Murder and/or other violence towards transgender people is a topic that is discussed as a group.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and no degree of cleanup, as if that were the issue, would change that; this is simply a list of synthed incidents that otherwise were not independently notable. Perhaps a new article detailing violence on transgender people could/should exist but this list does not convey the significance of such a topic in an encyclopedic way.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the euphemistic title ("unlawfully killed" should just be "murdered"), this article does not fulfill WP:LISTPEOPLE, which specifies A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement... Aside from a smattering of the very well known cases from the 2000s, the vast majority of people/cases on this list are clearly not notable. If following guidelines and removing them, there'd be little left. If the article is kept, it will have to be stubbed according to guidelines. Otherwise, it's just WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as has been mentioned above. Agricola44 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small note, LISPEOPLE goes on to say "There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E." I think that would cover a sufficient number of entries in this list since many of them are notable in RS for one event, their deaths. Rab V (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being murdered is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in a list: in the internet era, it's easy to find a source or even several for the fact that someone was murdered, but that's not notability. Almost the entire list from 2010 on is non-notable (no Wikipedia article). LISTPEOPLE mentions "common exceptions to the typical notability requirement", but in this list the 'exceptions' are the norm (and are very likely to remain that way). The list looks like Wikipedia:Activism. EddieHugh (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most murders are not covered in multiple national or international RS, but quite a few of these entries are. You may not feel like number of quality RS implies notability but that is how notability is defined by GNG. Rab V (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, but not entirely: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage" (WP:NOT). EddieHugh (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list first violates Wikipedia fundamental pillar of Neutrality both in title and content. How does Wikipedia determine who is killed unlawfully and who is killed lawfully? It also violates WP:SOAPBOX and these are two clear reasons for deletion. Consider first entry in 2017. If and independent reporter asks Saudi Police how would they say they killed her unlawfully? How can the reporter himself decided it is unlawful or lawful killing while he is neither judge nor court? Which court issued verdict they are killed unjustly and the jurisdiction of the court. Consider the 3rd entry in 2017 again. Who is definitely sure (with multiple RS, of course) that the woman was killed because of her gender? Who determined it is unlawful? Should we make list of everybody found dead somewhere and label it killed unlawfully?. This list is one of the most serious blatant violation of Wikipedia policy I have seen in the recent and is eroding its neutrality. I analyzed more than 10 entries and weigh them with the sources and I only understand that this list is soapboxing and propaganda by Transgender activist for emotional and cause benefit and to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as clearly said above. And this against fundamental tenets of Wikipedia plainly --Ammarpad (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider adding the names of those for whom a Wikipedia article exists into a new Category, if a goal is to create a page where there is a list of names/articles all sharing this characteristic. This has been done for, eg, Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes. Main reason for deletion is straight from policy (WP:NOT): "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons". EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is very well referenced and looks encylopedic to me. It provides an overview of a subset of human rights abuse.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of trans people being murdered for being trans is a notable one. This article, much like many other articles hastily put up for deletion is in need of cleanup and overview.★Trekker (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to something along the lines of transgender people who were murdered because they were transgender. A list of people who were transgender and murdered is undoubtedly indiscriminate. Conversely, I feel that a list of transgender people whose murders were motivated by their being transgender would be fairly uncontroversial. Cjhard (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable list, synth, not memorial. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above, we are not here to right great wrongs. Too much synthesis of non-notable events. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An indiscriminate linking of incidents and events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 27 December 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 redirect to Inductive reasoning. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logical induction[edit]

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

A non-notable research paper. The references are primary sources and a Tumblr blog. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to inductive reasoning, the article about the standard sense of the phrase. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The paper itself is an unpublished preprint. It has a handful of citations on Google scholar, but I think it's WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why "delete"? I think "redirect" is fine. There's no need to remove the history. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Vorbee (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The redirect target should be determined by the name, not by the current content. The name should redirect to inductive reasoning. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to inductive reasoning, per WP:R#ASTONISH I think this makes the most sense to someone searching "Logical induction". BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to inductive reasoning (which already has a hatnote pointing to mathematical induction, in case that's what the reader was after). XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, point of order, what is all this "delete and redirect" stuff? "Delete and redirect" means delete the history, not the content. That's for things like copyvio or libel. I see no reason at all to delete the history here. Can the D&R people explain why they want the D part? --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft creatures[edit]

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

Entirely WP:OR and WP:GAMEGUIDE list, and most of the links are to generic versions of the creatures rather than the specific Warcraft ones. More fitting for Wikia then Wikipedia, where there is already a list here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and factions of Warcraft as redundant, lacking sources, and any assertion of notability. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Creatures aren't necessarily a race or a faction, however, unless they are intelligent. It would be misleading as a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though only the Dragonkin, Elementals, and Giants are considered races even though they haven't picked a side in either of the factions. Maybe they can be placed under the neutral section of that page. As for the Demons, most of them are part of the Burning Legion while most of the Undead are part of the Scourge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. Nothing much more to say. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Literally just WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT. --TL22 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:01, 25 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Arthur Baird[edit]

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

Average coach of small college teams. Fails GNG. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newspapers.com shows an abundance of articles to establish notability of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please share this abundance. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles from Newspapers.com have already been added to the article as references. Here are four more: [31], [32], [33], [34].

The jpg in the article is the same as number 4. Those are all ROUTINE. They just give a quick announcement that Baird is coaching a team or he was elected captain, which are the definition of routine events. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given clearly goes beyond the definition given in WP:ROUTINE--"sports scores" would be the one that could apply here, and the source goes in to much more detail: his physical accomplishments, where he's played previously, a photo, practice for the team had begun, and projects good prospects for the upcoming season. All far beyond simple "sports scores" as called by WP:ROUTINE. See also WP:NOTROUTINE for more clarification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So ROUTINE is exhaustive, eh? Anything not mentioned there is non-routine coverage, I'm to understand? That's a tortured argument. The articles do not cover games, so you have to use an analogy if you want to make the discussion of "sports scores" relevant. The newspaper items discuss who will coach or captain a team at the beginning of the season. All seasons have coaches and captains, so like every game has a score, reporting on the coach or captain at the beginning of the season is routine in the Wikipedia sense. It is also routine in the plain-sense meaning of the term. You could find blurbs about every college coach in every college football program back to the invention of American football. So again, every single college coach is notable and should have a stand-alone article? Every detail you mention is superficial, not in depth. Finally, put together, those six articles have about 25 sentences about Baird. Is 25 sentences over four years significant coverage? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the word "exhaustive" got brought in and I don't see how it's "tortured" at all. ROUTINE is clear in its definitions. The articles provide information that is outside the scope of what is defined as ROUTINE. If we used the "plain-sense meaning of the term" then we'd need to delete pretty much everything on Wikipedia (after all, that's just "routine" coverage for the President of the United States" or that's just "routine" coverage for a global confrontation like World War II). As to six articles and 25 sentences: WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected..." The article in its present state uses 10 sources, but that does not mean that there are not more sources to be found in online and offline media. Enough is present to establish notability through WP:GNG and articles tend to grow once they exist. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it. Clear but not comprehensive. On deleting all of Wikipedia, ad absurdum. My point was about trying to figure out what is "significant", but please keep on quoting policy to me. I disagree on notability, obviously. There is a requirement to establish notability once it has been challenged. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to meet the GNG, he has a full obituary in the Illinois Bar Journal and a great biography at the school he coached for. --RAN (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? So he was a lawyer that died, OK. A college bio is not independent and barely reliable. But even granting it as a source, the most notable thing is "Baird became a star for the Wildcats, the first athlete to letter in three sports in one season: football, baseball and track. He was a punter and offensive guard on the football team and was named Chicago Daily News All-Big 10 as a sophomore." That is certainly not close to WP:NCOLLATH. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was that he met WP:GNG which trumps any specialty guideline. You wrote: "A college bio is not independent". It needs to independent of him (not self-published). It does not have to independent of an organization he worked for. It was written after his death when he entered their HOF. Not everyone that works at the New York Times gets a NYT obituary --RAN (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, self-interested maybe would be a better description. But I would not hang any notability argument on Carthage's bio. Can we agree on that? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent sources confirm that this individual was a head college football coach at the highest level of the sport at the time, having served as head coach for 12 years at three institutions in college football. The time period in question here is much different from today (see reasoning at essay WP:CFBCOACH). College football was not split in to divisions ~~(his Carthage squads played what became the University of Illinois every year)~~ and big powerhouses then (Yale, Harvard, Chicago) pale in comparison to what are considered powerhouses today (Auburn, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.). Judging the notability of events in the early 1900s using a lens from 2017 is inadequate. I see this as a clear pass of WP:GNG. Also, as a general rule "average coaches of small college teams" usually do generate enough press to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous argument. By that reasoning, every coach of every college football team before 1956 would deserve an article. WP:NGRIDIRON doesn't grant automatic notability for any college coach, let alone an average small college coach. And WP:NCOLLATH only grants automatic notability for national awards here Template:College football award navbox and the College Football Hall of Fame. CFBCOACH is the project's own essay. See below for why press coverage alone doesn't mean the subject deserves an article. Let me ask a question: does the coach's record count for anything in notability discussions? If everything was the same for Baird, except instead of being merely a .500 coach, he was winless. Would that change your opinion of his notability? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your opinion. History has shown time and again that we almost always keep articles about head coaches of college football programs. As to win/loss record, we have found that notability can arise from not winning as well as winning. See List of college football coaches with 0 wins. As for "significant coverage" GNG defines that as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." that standard has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know that I am very unimpressed by what the CFB project thinks of the notability of its articles. Of course having zero wins has its own notability, but my question was if the record of the coach makes any difference to his notability. The newspaper.com articles are not "in detail" and certainly not "significant". And again, even if it was significant, that just earns the presumption of notability, not the guarantee. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some agree with the CFB essay, others do not. The arguments are still sound and worth presenting. I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "presumed" however...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the Wikipedia definition of presumed immediately below. Are you saying I can't read? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you just didn't include all of it. You left off "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" -- we're having that discussion now. I don't see how any argument has been made toward the subject violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-- it's certainly not violating any policies and it's not an indiscriminate list of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the meaning of "perhaps"? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I figured out why it seems we are talking past each other on GNG. First, there is the issue of what counts as significant coverage. I don't think anything cited so far is significant, colleges hired new coaches all the time and athletes were elected captain every year. We do disagree on the signficance of those. Second, even if I grant significance, that only gives a presumption of notability. "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Call me old-fashioned, but at this point I would ask that there is actually something the article subject is notable for. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on people based on the fact that they were mentioned in the newspapers. So, what is Baird notable for? What is the situation or achievement that makes him a worthy subject of an article? Third, it must be determined that a stand-alone article is the best place for the information. There is an article List of Carthage Red Men head football coaches that could take a paragraph or two of prose about Baird and other equally non-notable coaches. Could I get some responses on points two and three? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay: J. Arthur Baird is notable primarily for being the head football coach at Carleton from 1903-1905, at Whitman from 1906-1907, and Carthage from 1908-1914. He also was the basketball coach and athletic director at Carthage from 1907-1915 and baseball coach from 1910-1916. This information is supported by significant coverage in reliable third party sources as defined by Wikipedia's general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing notable about being a college coach and athletic director. Are all college coaches who have short announcements of their hiring in the newspaper worthy of their own article? How about Ben Mathis? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If were using personal preference as a gauge, that might be true. Popular vote could be drummed up and perhaps a majority of editors would vote to delete. But personal preferences and popular vote are not the measures we use. Can you perhaps show a guideline or policy that supports your argument?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates are in between personal preferences and simply applying policy. Its like a Supreme Court decision. We have the same policies and the same set of facts before us. But like different judges, we are interpreting the same policies, GNG and ROUTINE, differently and thus applying them to the facts differently. What matters is the arguments made in defense of our interpretations. Ideally, the best arguments attract the most support and achieve consensus. In this case, I'm pessimistic that enough non-CFB partisans would weigh in to tip the balance to my view, but I feel good about the arguments I'm making. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that AFDs are a whole lot less like a Supreme Court Decision and more like an ad-hoc committee meeting where people can come and go as they please--and then someone who hasn't been involved in any of the discussion comes along and makes the decision as they see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said "ideally". - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about having an awesome job title, it is that the media has taken notice of you for some reason. We have Category:Celebrity for people who are "famous just for being famous", no job title required. We also have Category:Philanthropists who are notable just for giving money away and we have Category:Socialites who "spend a significant amount of time attending various fashionable social gatherings". "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Can you point out what part of the biography is "original research"? Significant coverage is defined so that we need not endlessly argue about what it means. When we only have a few sentences about a person/television show, we combine them into list articles, but this biography has enough information for a full article. --RAN (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll continue to follow this discussion. My arguments have been made. If I have additional relevant arguments, I'll bring them. I don't want the discussion to digress. Have a great day everyone!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction Carthage has not played the University of Illinois in football. I mis-read data that showed games against Illinois College. I have struck comments above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have tilted off the fence toward the keep side. Not overwhelming, but coverage from this era can be very hard to find in on-line sources. I'm also influenced by the fact that there's enough sourcing available to build a fairly well-rounded article rather than a perma-stub. All in all, enough to get over the WP:GNG hurdle (in particular, the newspaper sources and Illinois Bar Journal items cited in the article and the four newspaper articles referenced above by Jweiss). In fairness to the nominator, the current article is considerably improved from the minimally-sourced stub that existed at the time of the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is longer, that is all. I would like to see the law journal articles, I don't believe those are available online. Every other source cited is routine and not significant coverage of Baird. The claim is this man is notable because he told other men enrolled in small colleges what to do on the football field for 10 years. His won-loss record doesn't seem to make any difference to his notability. I haven't looked into the college basketball situation, but I'm betting there is no way Baird would have an article if he only coached basketball and baseball and was an AD. He also wouldn't have an article if there weren't a few CFB project participants who value completeness over notability. I am very interested in how low down the notability scale Cbl62 will go, since they seem to express reluctance, but usually side with keeping and creating marginal articles. Would someone like to start digging into Ben Mathis to see if he is notable? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You express interest in "how low down" I will go on the notability scale -- kind of like a limbo dance, eh? Well, like everyone else, my voting history is public record. See here (pretty evenly split, but a slight majority of my votes [53.5%] are to Delete/Merge/Redirect/Userfy). Compare Mnnlaxer here (90.9% of votes to Delete/Merge/Redirect). As for what constitutes routine coverage, there is, like so much in life and Wikipedia, a lot of grey area. Passing mentions in game coverage and brief announcements of hiring, release, etc. (the kind found in a "Transactions" section in the newspaper) are on one extreme, clearly. Feature stories are the other paradigm. In between ... grey area that requires us to exercise our judgment in assessing the totality of the relevant factors, as we've all done here in good faith. Cbl62 (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've updated the "Head coach notability discussion library". I can't say for sure it's complete, and if anyone recalls other past discussions, please feel free to add them to the library. Based on what's there, there have been only two head coach articles removed (one deleted, one userfy'ed), and both of those were subsequently recreated with one surviving a second AfD. I do not believe that all college head coaches are notable, but the discussion library suggests such cases typically result, sooner or later, in the discovery of sufficient coverage to pass muster. Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG does not care if a coach is average. There is sufficient material here to satisfy GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of routine coverage does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 27 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft locations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted as gamecruft in 2007, was recreated and is still exactly the same gamecruft now. Entirely WP:OR & WP:GAMEGUIDE list, and already exists in WoW Wiki here so nothing of value would be lost if it was deleted again. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warcraft as already traswikied material lacking an assertion of encyclopedic notability. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is redirected, it should be redirected to it's settings' section with some extended detail about the major locations in this franchise. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ajf773, not much more to say. -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT and failure of WP:GNG. Even if sources were found, it'd probably be a WP:TNT type situation, as it's written entirely by a in-universe perspective, rather than a real-world, encyclopedic one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4, seeing that the nomination rationale in the previous AfD is similar to this one, and, like the nom said, the fact that the page was deleted for pretty much the same reasons suggests that this page is a recreation. --TL22 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It very well could have been back in 2014 when the page was recreated with no rationale, but no one caught it. I think people frown on speedying pages so long after they are recreated and edited._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete WP:GAMECRUFT, full of WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 27 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Enrique[edit]

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

Actor with a couple of small supporting roles. No sources in article showing he meets the standards of notability, and none found in good faith google search. PROD request by another editor was deleted by article author, so here we are. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stand by my original PROD rationale that Enrique has no major roles in a notable film or television production, and thus fails WP:ENT. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, the actor's IMDB profile is quite the read but unfortunately I do not find myself won over in a heartbeat by this article's charisma and natural charm. The subject has not yet "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". But I hope he will not despair - as a great man once said, "anything and everything is possible and you should never give up your dreams." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of notability guidelines. We need someone to go through all actor articles, because we actually have quite a few on non-notable actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 27 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray River Curly Coated Retriever[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable, sources given here are "easypetmd" which looks like one of many dog breed clickbait websites with little to no curation, a brief article about them (and apparently the only one per google news other than a photograph of a meet), and the breed website. TKK! bark with me! 00:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG, which is rather odd if this breed has been around since the late 1800s, while there is plenty to support GNG for the Curly Coated Retriever (CCR), which is supposed to be a different breed. Also the image in the article is NOT labelled at its source as a MRCCR just as a CCR! Aoziwe (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing particularly notable about the subject. Majority of info on it is from the Murray River Retriever interest group's website. Only mention from an independent reliable source is about how that interest group is upset that it's considered a 'design-breed' and not a pure-bred dog. The group claims the breed has been around 150 years and differs genetically from the Curly Coated Retriever but there are no independent, reliable sources to back this up. Doesn't pass GNG. Kb.au (talk) 10:11, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health Journeys[edit]

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

Non-notable wp:artspam. Sources are not significant coverage to meet notability. Was tagged for csd earlier. Don't know what happened there. I tagged and untagged for CSD. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable speedy. I see no evidence that this does not meet WP:A7, but the promotional content is not obvious enough for WP:G11. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- excessive and promotional 'cruft. One of the sources is "Free Educational Materials Available on SmithKline Beecham Product Web Site". www.prnewswire.com. (??) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 22 December 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.

^ "IMDb Biography Vincent Gao". Retrieved Dec 21, 2017.

[1] "IMDb Biography Vincent Gao". Retrieved Dec 21, 2017.

[1]

v t e London bus and coach stations
London Buses	Addington Village Aldgate Beckton Brent Cross Canada Water Canning Town Crystal Palace Dagenham Dock Dalston Junction Ealing Hospital East Croydon Edgware Edmonton Green Elmers End Eltham Euston Finsbury Park Golders Green Hammersmith Harrow Hatton Cross Heathrow Central Heathrow Terminal 5 Hounslow Hounslow West Kingston Cromwell Road Kingston Fairfield Leytonstone Liverpool Street London Bridge Newbury Park North Finchley North Greenwich Orpington Peckham Prince Regent Richmond Romford Brewery Romford Queen's Hospital Shepherd's Bush South Harrow Stratford Stratford City Streatham Tottenham Hale Turnpike Lane Vauxhall Victoria Waltham Cross Walthamstow Waterloo West Croydon White City
Coach	Golders Green Heathrow Central Victoria
London transport portal • Buses portal Reference: "London's bus stations: a passenger's perspective". London TravelWatch. Retrieved 2021-11-09.