Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect given the merge has inevitably occurred, nac, SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Hentschel[edit]

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

A radio operator / gunner who flew with ground attack pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found; the best is one short para from Hitler's Stuka Squadrons, but it's not sufficient for a stand-alone article. Notability is not inherited from Rudel.

Per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winner articles, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists. In this case, the redirect has been challenged because the subject was "the 3rd on the list of combat missions flown in the Luftwaffe". However, successful completion of missions (sorties flown, tanks destroyed, enemy shipping sank) is not part of SOLDIER. For a comparative AfD on a radar operator, please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Handke (the result was "delete")

An article on this subject was deleted from German wikipedia in 2012 via a deletion discussion: link. I'm proposing either a Delete or a Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ha–Hm). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- I added relevant content to the Hans-Ulrich Rudel article. Can now be redirected. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (a sentence or two) and redirect to Hans-Ulrich Rudel. Hentschel gets a few mentions, all in connection to Rudel,[1][2][3] and his death is already mentioned in Rudel's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cited mention in the Rudel article and redirect the name; agree with Clarityfiend, that would be reasonable. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect -- Another NN Knight's Cross recipient. We need to discourage such articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I added content about Hertschel to Rudel's article: diff based on Hitler's Stuka Squadrons. The other two sources mentioned are a passing mention and non-RS looking. The sources in the article are phaleristics literature of limited value. Squadrons is the best available. I believe the article can be redirected now. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 19 July 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 Ladybird Books. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedtime Rhymes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was that (allowing for the relatively common words in the title) extant sources available online weren't confirming much beyond the book's existence, which doesn't meet GNG as a result. The article was de-PROD'ed with the contention that a book published in 1977 wouldn't necessarily have much available through a web search, which is fair enough, but the issue of the book's notability still remains. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, book's author, audrey daly quite a prolific ladybird book writer with 40+ books to her credit, this one doesn't appear to be anymore notable than the others, btw, don't get me wrong about ladybird books, i have some wonderful childhood memories about them (who could forget Tootles the taxi, or The Five little kittens or the Hannibal hamster series:)), i'd love to have wikiarticles on all of them but without the sources this isn't going to happen, sad to say but this one looks like a delete. ps. the article says 149 pages for book length, it is not, it is 51pages like other ladybird books from the 1970s. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladybird Books until notability can be established. ~Kvng (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladybird Books. This way if someone searches this plausible search term, they will at least find the source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 20 July 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) 18:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GaleForce Digital Technologies[edit]

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

Company that fails WP:N, when considered in light of WP:ORG. Coverage is either entirely local or does not surpass standard run of the mill coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the article subject appears to be regional and not notable. In addtion, the primary source for the article [4] is taken from the subject company, and cannot be considered without WP:COI. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorially toned and no claim of significance. Sources include routine announcements; fails CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 19 July 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) 18:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rawlings[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few sources, but not enough to pass GNG. South Nashua (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A notable creative professional, well-known amongst her peers. Enough interest/sorces to pass GNG. User:RaphaelSoyer 16 July 2017
Delete Only saw one news article on her, New York Times but the coverage was in passing and not a profile. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:37, 16 July 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. So Why 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PCR Educator[edit]

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

All the sources are either self-published or read like press releases. A search turned up a few more self-published sources, but zero independent coverage. Fails WP:NORG. (Sidenote: the article was created by a WP:SPA.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and references fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP / WP:GNG. No reliable sources to demonstrate notability, existing sources are press releases and the like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any media coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:20, 21 July 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. So Why 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Science Academy[edit]

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

Insufficient information for notability. Google search shows that it exists, and is apparently the one in Pakistan, but there is no independent coverage of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There isn't much here, no actual claim in this unsourced and two sentence article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be speedy delete - creator didn't even bother to put the location of the school so there's no way to confirm its existence. I removed his name from another article where he added himself with a Pakistan IP edit. [[5]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:27, 21 July 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) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Marketing Inc.[edit]

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

Local ad agency that won local awards that do not confer notability. Nothing to be found that meets the requirements of WP:N, and the sourcing that does exist is run of the mill stuff in local business journals. The name is so generic that it turns up a lot of Google hits, but nothing seems to be substantial about this agency. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article subject does not seem to be notable. Per nom, winning an award in a regional competition does not entail notability. Lack of sources cited in article violates WP:CORPDEPTH, and most mentions of the company are minor or tacked onto media about other brands. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator and SamHolt6. Nothing here suggests notability. Jeppiz (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:24, 20 July 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) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FiscalityONE ERP MRP WMS[edit]

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

Software with no claim in article of meeting the notability guidelines. Goodfaith google search turns up zero independent sources -- only the company's website, facebook, and other user-submitted content comes up. Prod tag was removed by the article creator without addressing any of the concerns, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, all content is promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CaySeven (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) The software is notable to its developers, investors, customers (past and present) and users (past and present) for over twenty years. The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system. Notability is line with those other many software packages listed in Wikipedia, for various reasons, and external references or citations listing injections of venture funding do not in themselves infer notability, yet seem to be accepted. After being present in the bespoke market for over two decades, the FiscalityONE entry on wikipedia will be able to cite external references as becomes more publicly known. Yet is still notable. The article is objective, non-promotional, impartial and in line with the wording of other unchallenged entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaySeven (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Comment And there's the problem. The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system - Wikipedia is not a free marketing channel. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Very clearly promotional. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks significance and fails to meet WP:NOTE criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 20 July 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) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Miller Jr.[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Long and honorable career in various British leagues, but nothing that meets NHOCKEY, and no evidence is proffered that would meet the GNG. Ravenswing 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furler[edit]

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

Nominator has withdrawn nomination~~Only one of the furlers is notable enough to have a page on this wiki Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also Bob Furler, Hans Furler, and Peter Furler. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When one entry had its page deleted, it would have been best to look for other possible entries (as Tavix pointed out there are several) and if none were found, it should have become a redirect to the remaining entry. Ssjhowarthisawesome, please consider withdrawing this. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Sia is not the only notable Furler, as there are more than one other notable Furler that is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ssjhowarthisawesome, you haven't read my comment correctly. I was pointing out that you made two mistakes here - firstly, thinking a surname page with only one entry should be deleted rather than redirected, if there really was no way of improving it (see WP:ATD) and secondly that you didn't try to improve the page WP:BEFORE nominating it for deletion. I know there are other notable people, as I said in my comment, and I'm the one who improved the page. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As other notbale Furlers have been added. Ravendrop 19:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. An absolutely bog-standard surname page, with (a) links to articles to several people with that surname, and (b) links to corresponding surname-type pages in French and German Wikis. Why on earth is this even up for discussion? Narky Blert (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Narky Bert and Ravendrop. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 11:36, 14 July 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 that the subject does not meet notability standards at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syrus Marcus Ware[edit]

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

No good evidence of notability per applicable policies ~Kvng (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's notability potential in the art gallery showings if the article were sourced properly, but the referencing here is far too dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones: the one thing here that's actually a reliable source is a book chapter which Syrus is the author of. This is simply not how you source an artist over WP:CREATIVE — a person gets notable for Wikipedia's purposes by being the subject of reliable source content written by other people, not by being the author of content about other things. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but frustrated. I see lots of work, and seemingly good work, but not enough secondary sources talking about it. Basically, I'm echoing Bearcat here. Searching Google Books produces lots of hits, but they are all as contributor, not as the subject of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 20 July 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. So Why 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Industries[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. What coverage I could find is minor and routine. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 16:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that this is a WP:LISTED company. See: [6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not listed on a major exchange like the NYSE, it is only on NASDAQ, one of over 3200. MB 17:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the NASDAQ article, "It is the second-largest exchange in the world by market capitalization, behind only the New York Stock Exchange". Clearly a major exchange. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the same article, NASDAQ has three tiers of listing. It has an overall large market capitalization because it includes large companies like Intel and Apple in the top tier. But a small company like Gibraltar in the bottom tier is not equivalent to being in the NYSE. I don't think being on NASDAQ makes a company automatically notable. There are thousands of small-cap companies that don't get much coverage. MB 05:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - NASDAQ is generally considered a major exchange. The existing sources aren't sufficient [7] has some information on the company. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per a previous editor, coverage by wide spectrum analytics such as Bloomberg and a listing on the NASDAQ do not confer notability. Per WP:LISTED, the fact that no other sources are cited indicates to me that the company is not notable. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Odd but it wouldn't be the first listed company that turns out doesn't meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this would be easy to show notability but all I find are mentions, not significant coverage, even in Google book searches. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 20 July 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) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nanaho Katsuragi[edit]

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

Repeating initial argument. ANN search results:

1) Crayon Kingdom (Cloud - main)

2) Doremi (Ms Seki - supporting)

3) Digimon: Data Squad (Kudamon - supporting)

4) Fafner (Yoko Hazama - supporting)

Subject only has Cloud as her main role; rest are supporting. Subject has yet to garner enough main, significant roles to assert her notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, coverage for her is lacking in either Japanese or English. Crayon Kingdom isn't exactly a popular series (I've never even heard about it before this discussion) and thus I don't think it's viable to redirect the title to the article on that. Only a handful of notable (ANN bold) roles, none of which appear to be lead roles, so she doesn't even seem to pass WP:ENT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no potential to develop any significant article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 16 July 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) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Freedom Party[edit]

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

A non-registered political party that has never contested an election. The "registration pending" claim itself is questionable as Elections Alberta maintains a list of reserved party names for future use on which Alberta Freedom does not appear. Also, GNG. Madg2011 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be marginally fair, according to the article this party was formed after the most recent Alberta provincial election, and thus wouldn't even have had the opportunity to contest an election yet — so that's not the main issue here. But what is definitive is the lack of ability to properly verify that they've actually been formally registered at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when registration with Elections Alberta can be properly verified, but they're not listed as a registered party as of today and "registration pending" is not enough to satisfy our notability standards for political parties. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and for now mention on List of political parties in Alberta is enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:50, 16 July 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) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinshū Fuji[edit]

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

No notability, no reliable sources regarding the subject could be found. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some major voice dubbing roles, including the lead role for Daniel Craig's James Bond movies ... so I would think that would qualify! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. no notable roles except maybe Saotome in Beelzebub. JA wikipedia is just a credits dump with no sourcing or biographical information to gather and present. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 19 July 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 A7: No credible indication of importance. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan Pandita[edit]

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

WP:NEWS.FailsWP:NFOOTBALL.See WP:TRIVIA. Winged Blades^Godric 15:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 13 July 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 as original research. If the subject is really about the commonalities and differences between the meanings of "light" in various genres, then there must exist reliable source coverage about the commonalities and differences. Without such coverage, this article amounts to pure WP:SYNTHESIS. A redirect might have been a good alternative although, as was pointed out, there isn't a good target available. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light (fantasy)[edit]

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

Without sources defining the meaning or use of light in fantasy, this all seems original research with at least 7 definitions of light in fantasy. No evidence that the subject itself meets notability (although I admit it's hard to search for). Doug Weller talk 16:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research--Yopie (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You have to jump through some logical hoops to call all examples of the 'good guys' the "light". Most stories don't have a light side, they just have a dark side and then the normal guys. Harry Potter is used as an example here, but while there are dark wizards in HP, never are the good guys referred to as 'light' wizards. The dark and light sides of the force in star wars are not the same as other fantasy or sci-fi, and the same is true of other stories, you can't correlate all of these disparate themes into one concept and call it an article topic. What we are looking at here is good and evil, used as themes in fantasy, sci-fi, and popular culture. If this topic is to be covered at all I say cover it in a section on literature or pop culture in the good article. However, we still need a WP:TNT as there is too much original research here. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Combining related facts into a cohesive text is not original research. The content is furthermore common knowdledge, and not original at all, it is as old as Egypt. If you think the text isn't good enough, improve it. If you think more sources are needed, add them. If the search isn't easy, give it time. Don't throw the topic away just because a new user hasn't produced the perfect article in one edit. Pris La Cil (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combining related unsourced 'facts' is definitely original research. I am not suggesting we throw out the topic. I suggested that we expand the topic at a subsection in Good, I would suggest a merge, but I firmly believe that the current article needs to be TNTed and the topic restarted from scratch using sources this time. this entry in this encyclopedia of Fantasy and Sci-fi is probably a good place to start for such a topic creation (it is the only source that specifically uses the 'light' terminology that I have found). This[8] has some useful stuff. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Pris says. Why the hurry, I told you I was adding sources. Dolberty (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you added are not reliable sources. The encyclopedia I linked above is useful, but the other sources you added are either not reliable (the ones I removed) or are sources about a specific game/book that are being used to represent the entire genre (WP:SYNTHESIS). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment None of them are independent sources meeting WP:RS discussing the subject.Doug Weller talk 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, after editing, with a related article -- video game content can certainly be encyclopedia-worthy if there are sufficient quality sources, but linking multiple threads together under the unifying theme of "light" may not be enough. Consider the guidelines at WP:TRIVIA, the advisory essay at WP:CRUFT, and the essay at WP:POPCULTURE, all of which have some bearing on this article. (Also this xkcd.) What really distinguishes these things besides their being "light"? Are there other treatments of "light" in scholarly texts, video game industry articles, literary criticism or media commentary? I suggest kicking a draft around with the folks who specialize in this sort of stuff, maybe Wikipedia:Articles for creation or somewhere like that. I will note that, at the very least, the formatting of this article is quite good, so you've at least got the mechanics of editing down, which is nice. RexSueciae (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexSueciae To clarify, are you voting to merge (if so where?) or to draftify the article? I agree with draftifying and sending it to articles for creation, in its current form I don't think it is suitable for a merge, but with considerable work and if more sources can be found, it could potentially make a standalone topic or could be a section at good. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — fortunavelut luna 15:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is currently an orphan, and there's no coherent concept across fantasy. The Force (Star Wars), White magic, and "light magic" in Dungeons and Dragons are all different. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they are different. Because it's fiction, they're not allowed to copy each other! This article is about what they have in common and how they differ. Dolberty (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary lists multiple meanings of a word under a single heading; an encyclopedia has separate entries for different concepts. Most of these topics are already covered in other articles: Black-and-white dualism, White#Associations and symbolism, White magic, and for individual franchises The Force (Star Wars), Character class (Dungeons & Dragons), Might and Magic VI: The Mandate of Heaven, etc. (Draftify would be fine, as long as it's reshaped into different articles; I don't think a redirect is suitable unless others believe it a likely search term.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Black-and-white dualism is an unintelligible mess, and the other articles are either non-fiction or individual. Dolberty (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should redirect to the missing Good and evil (fiction)... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not missing. Good and evil in fiction is no different from good and evil in non-fiction. However light is not the same as good, as the article explains. Did you read it? Dolberty (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; agree that any proposition for merge / redirect falls at the atrget stall. — fortunavelut luna 15:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, that's not a valid reason. If you see original research (where?), improve the text. Pris La Cil (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Pris la Cil: Pas vrai, malheuresment. WP:OR is one of the three core content policies, and as such is covered within WP:DEr14 and per 'rticles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research', if the article requuires a fundamental rewrite. See also WP:PGL; you might be thinking of WP:POORLY. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:54, 14 July 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Esther[edit]

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

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

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

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

A very trivial mention in the Washington Post, lack significant in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable writer. Quis separabit? 03:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, NWRITER, etc. South Nashua (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not establish that the subject meets WP:N, as it is purely trivial mentions. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete", but there was an appeal on my talk page so relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has received reviews of her work in several reliable sources. She was written up by the Christian Post and mentioned by Washington Post. She passes CREATIVE. I've added the sources to the article. Please take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. The delete opinions were all before the references were added. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes N, adequate coverage in secondary sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: On July 14, 2017 I posted a technical question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts asking why this AfD wasn't picked-up by the BOT scan (thinking that's how Projects are notified of articles at AfD, etc.) Xxanthippe wrongfully accused me of canvassing. In case anybody is wondering, I also asked a similar question on the TP of Gene93k today since he posts such notices. If you're interested in what time I wake-up in the morning, please post your question to my TP. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources to pass WP:Author. Note. This AfD has been canvassed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts#Question without attribution. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Rather thin canvass. Thincat (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - before any further allegations are made about canvassing, I highly recommend a refresher read of WP:APPNOTE, which clearly states that it's appropriate to place a notification or message on The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

And Xxanthippe, please strike your note as the allegation is inappropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing can be done that in a way that is appropriate if conducted according to the guidelines. One of the statements in the guideline says It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. The discussion itself is clearly this AfD, and no note was left here, so the guideline has not been followed. It was therefore appropriate to call attention to this lapse and hope that it will not be repeated. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, that's a notification and request for how to list something, Xxanthippe. It's absolutely not a canvass (see WP:CAN which defines canvassing as an attempt to influence the outcome of a discussion and has nothing to do with neutral notifications.). Atsme has every right to request help for bots that notify interested WikiProjects. Also, considering the subject of the article's work has been reviewed in several RS, how does she not pass WP:AUTHOR? She's received significant critical attention and that's on top of the articles about her life. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AUTHOR point 4 says "The person's work (or works) ... has won significant critical attention" and the evidence found so far is that this may be true. The article should be allowed time to develop. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post non-trivial coverage in my opinion satisfies WP:GNG and WaPo is a reliable independent source. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just saw this had been reopened. Good work rewriting the article and providing the sourcing neccesary. I've struck my above !vote. Agreed that this meets WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG, and appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR from what I can tell. Also as Megalibrarygirl mentioned she was written about in two somewhat major publications. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:21, 17 July 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. czar 07:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Ventures[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and the guidance of WP:ORG. The sources that exist are either not independent (written by the company itself as a blog or press release), not reliable, or run of the mill and insubstantial under WP:CORPDEPTH. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, Fails WP:N. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*

Delete per editors above. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:59, 16 July 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. So Why 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical Lasers Incorporated[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. The few sources independent of the subject are routine announcements and a press release. A WP:BEFORE search didn't reveal a significant coverage in reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Provided references are either press release or pdf , which does not pass WP:GNG BetterSmile:D 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, is not covered in depth and fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Typical corporate wiki-spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 21 July 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. czar 07:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kim (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards (USHL All-Rookie is not enough) and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability (3 games in the AHL). Yosemiter (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines of hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:59, 15 July 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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Brock[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said coverage but were not successful. Recommending deletion until evidence of such is presented. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nontrivial mentions I've been able to locate online are listed below. There are a few secondary sources, but the ones that are available are mainly just local news websites; I wouldn't think they are enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It would appear that he fails WP:NARTIST as well; it doesn't seem as though any of his works meet either of the criteria established there. Cthomas3 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was reliable by including it. I merely did so for the sake of being a non-trivial mention that I happened to find in my searches. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching was difficult due to the commonality of the name, but there does not appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 21 July 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) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelan Patterson[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the hundreds of NN articles created in open defiance of all notability guidelines (and for which the offending editor was, all too belatedly, community banned from new article creation), this undistinguished NN minor leaguer doesn't break the pattern. Ravenswing 18:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources presented were found to be insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Charcol[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article from SPA/COI. . Promotional. There is a small amount of coverage in specialist press but this fails my interpretation of of CORPDEPTH and GNG. Just three mentions in respectable mainstream press - http://www.independent.co.uk/money/how-low-can-they-go-home-loans-edge-towards-1-a6877621.html merely giving an opinion on something in their sector, a very brief incidental mention here https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/24/mortgage-broker-bank-building-society, then http://www.standard.co.uk/business/entrepreneurs-the-team-behind-broker-john-charcol-learns-recession-lessons-to-make-the-most-of-a-a2871386.html - a more in depth article on the company itself. not sufficient to confer notability. falls far short of it in my opinion. Rayman60 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has significant coverage [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The rest can be fixed. - TheMagnificentist 11:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked the 2nd half of your links - one is behind an FT paywall (7), 6 felt a little close to what I would start classifying as WP:Routine (i.e. brief article in trade publication regarding potential sale of company). 8, 9 and 10 are links I already posted. Can they be considered significant coverage? They feel very much like brief mentions. It's not about the company per se, and in my subjective interpretation of significant, this falls considerably short. Rayman60 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the sources themselves may meet the criteria for reliability, the references fail the criteria for establishing notability since they are either routine announcements, mentions-in-passing where an employee is fired or relying on company-produced information or quotations from company sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and therefore GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per King's point. A large number trivial mentions in sources does not meet Wikipedia's WP:CORPDEPTH standards.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 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) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Str8 Kash[edit]

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

I find no sources to support a finding of notability under the general notability guidelines, nothing to support WP:ENTERTAINER. What sources exist, including the ones referenced in the article, are social media, videos, and download sites. Largoplazo (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Finding no coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Does not meet WP:BASIC at this time, and finding no evidence of WP:MUSICBIO being met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 14 July 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. So Why 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Fountain[edit]

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

No applicable sources for WP:GNG for "Eddie Fountain" or EddieSoulMuziq; no achievements pertinent to WP:ENTERTAINER. Fails WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find one news article on subject using all three of his aliases - fails WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 20:55, 16 July 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. Sandstein 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Nigerians[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a topic that doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Jamaican Nigerian before, so I'm not sure its really a thing. Doesn't even sound uniform when I pronounce it. Sources online aren't impressive either. Exact phrase search displayed no results. What I could find was references on Nigerians in Jamaica and Jamaicans in Nigeria, something similar to the Igbo people in Jamaica article. I see the see also section of the article includes Nigerian Pidgin and Nigerian reggae. If the historical account of these topics are significantly linked with Jamaican occupation in Nigeria, then it might be worth keeping, although the title and the content will need a rewrite. For now, I am tending towards delete since there is nothing historical in the article atm. Darreg (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm sure there are some Jamaicans who have moved to various parts of Africa for whatever reason, but the article history and no reliable sourcing indicates WP:N. It's WP:OSE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 14 July 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. Sandstein 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Jamaicans[edit]

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

Unsourced article, on a topic that doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage (apart from Portuguese Jews' migration to Jamaica, which is covered at History of the Jews in Jamaica). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. No indication of this topic's notability or importance. Cjhard (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:53, 13 July 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. So Why 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Huszar[edit]

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

This survived AfD back in 2006, partly on the basis that the artist showed promise. Well, eleven years later, it seems that promise has yet to materialize. The only source is a puff piece in a tabloid newspaper, which really isn't enough to show notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any confirmation of the claim that he had exhibition in all museums in Bucharest as well as zero sources for the past 20 years in the web.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:53, 13 July 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. So Why 11:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Weir[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are mostly listings, CVs, or lack Independence. reddogsix (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:53, 13 July 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. czar 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Fiske[edit]

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

I declined an A7 as there are sources. However, having had a quick look, it seems this person is only documented as leaving a brief comment about the state of the Democrat candidates in the 2016 election as a sophomore student. Can't find anything else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can see this college student is completely unnotable, merely having been asked, as a member of the student community, for her view of candidates before the 2016 US presidential election. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. Appearing once on cable TV is nowhere close to sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Power~enwiki. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. No in-depth coverage about her. Current sources are just reliable sources interviewing undecided voters (one of whom happens to be her) about the 2016 election. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, subject lacks sufficient coverage and fails WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:12, 17 July 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. So Why 11:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Poudel[edit]

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

Completely promotional article created by a sockpuppet and patrolled by a different sockpuppet, with no reliable sources at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article on non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources giving him any depth of coverage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed promotional texts. Magne budho (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:52, 13 July 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. So Why 12:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Diving Federation[edit]

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

The organisation is not notable and does not meet WP:GNG. The two sources found are user-generated news blogs from Poland, which do not meet our standards for reliable sources of "having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:IRS #Overview. RexxS (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving in the hope of attracting more views. --RexxS (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely to find more sources about this topic, while looking for the subject organization I found many other diving organizations. Does not meet WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 13 July 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. So Why 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeuronDotNet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY/WP:NSOFTWARE/etc. was deprodded by creator User:Ajgorhoe who added several references, whose quality was subsequently criticized by User:Staszek Lem, who removed them (see Talk:NeuronDotNet). I agree that the references don't discuss the topic in depth, and are not enough to show notability, so the next step is a wider discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be at least somewhat visible — Google scholar found 59 academic works that cite it — but among them I didn't find any with the nontrivial and independent coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a huge number of useful tools which are free and used in the academia to some extent. I can name a dozen of graph matching programs or polygon triangulation packages off my head. They are given credit in scholarly papers which used them. But nobody makes big fuss about them just because they are free and used. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see relevance of NeuronDotNet as one of early generally accessible libraries for ANN modelling, especially in the .NET realm. It is notable for its emphasis on modularity, which adds flexibility in combining different architectures and training algorithms. This may be the reason that it found application in engineering, research and derived software. A number of references that I have hastily included in [this version] (and were righteously, at least what concerns the way they were added, criticized by User:Staszek Lem), indicate use in rather different applications and for different purposes, which somehow supports the claims related to modularity. Some secondary sources do cover the subject, though maybe not to large extent. I would say this situation is inherent in software libraries, where more popular attention is usually given to the more visible part, i.e. applications. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not enough be in encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though unfortunately. It was one of the early .NET ANN libraries (I remember a classmate who was trying to use this). However, as far as I remember it was not very popular. I am not sure how do we fulfil WP:GNG in cases of software, (unless we are talking about OpenCV or TensorFlow). If I compare with something similar such as iTextSharp (iText for C#), I don't see any article for that (though there is a small mention in the main iText article). Google Scholar shows a handful of citations but nothing in any tier-1 conference like ICML, AAAI and others. (I apologise if I missed any paper from these). I don't think it was very popular though.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking opinions Hello Piotrus, Staszek Lem, David Eppstein and Ajgorhoe. Although, I have already voted above, I would be happy to change my vote to a merge/redirect if a suitable article can be found.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your desire to retain info about this tool. It is not like some kind of overhyped startup or minor android applet. The library was really used in the academy, as we see the credits in academic articles. Nowever you have to find independent refs with some substantial info, not simple mentions:, in order to justify its inclusion somewhere, per WP:NOT ("not a collection of miscellaneous information"). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your explanation. The WP:NOT is a useful page to read. After looking again, I will think I will stay with my original delete vote. I also looked again at the publications which have cited this, but I am not very impressed as some of the publication seem to be in predatory journals.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:26, 20 July 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) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Mo(singer)[edit]

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

Not sure what the notability is. "Yi An Music Club" has no article on en.wiki or zh.wiki. "He is known for being very bubbly and cheerful and is the mood maker. He is talented in singing,dancing and variety" is not a claim for notability. Timmyshin (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nothing on WP on him or the band. Searching the internet the boy band exists but no indication it’s notable; seems to be a band with a mostly local presence, not national or international.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Chinese sources can be found , either. --Antigng (talk) 15:34, 14 July 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 BBC News at Ten. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Royall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and his employer. Rentier (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paul Royall is the editor of the two most watched News programmes in the United Kingdom. He's both cited in and occasionally subject of independent secondary literature on the media, such as here, here, and here. The position is a prominent one, and his appointment received independent media coverage as in here and here.

I'm sure further verifiable sources can be located with more time. This has been listed here very soon after the PROD tag was removed.Landscape repton (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the first argument, notability is not inherited. The three "secondary" sources you listed are not about Paul Royall and as such contribute virtually nothing to establishing notability. As for the news about his appointment, I consider them a rehash of the BBC's press release, which also contributes very little. Rentier (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BBC News at Ten. There's some info on him but I'm not seeing enough to establish notability (although I've focused on newspapers, not specifically searched specialist press) - you'd expect some profiles of major BBC figures, but aside from Press Gazette I couldn't find any. One problem is that the BBC ,which would be a major news source for other stories, can't be classed as independent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BBC News at Ten – Sources abound that provide quotes from the subject or cover what he has said, but not finding much in terms of biographical coverage, although a bit exists, such as [19]. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC at this time. A merge will improve the BBC News at Ten article, which presently has only a 7-word sentence about the subject, as per WP:ATD-M. Also a valid search term, as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BBC News at Ten per WP:NOTINHERITED. He's not independently notable aside from the programme. I declined the PROD as I believed deletion would be controversial, not because I thought he passed WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since he's currently mentioned there so there's no need to merge-template anything since this would inevitably lead to the same result. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 20 July 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 Soho Center. Nominator suggested merge and Jytdog suggested deletion while pointing out that the subject is already covered at the proposed merge location, so redirecting there is something both can agree on based on their comments. So Why 12:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Health Information Project[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Merge with Soho Center Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - blatant promo. is already discussed in the Soho Center article. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:16, 13 July 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. So Why 12:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hyun-joon[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's appeared in enough notable works to pass NACTOR Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not the number of notable films they've appeared in, but the number of significant roles they've had in notable films. Which he clearly does not pass. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, I think he has enough roles in notable films to pass WP:NACTOR, according to the second source on the page. It says he has many roles, both lead and supporting, in notable works. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, My Drama List is not a reliable source, as it is user driven. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point in that it's not the best source, but it would stand to reason that the information on who was in what work came from the producer's credits,and is thus verifiable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand what you're saying, however, there is a reason that user-generated info sites are non-reliable, you would think what you say is true, but if a user can change the info, and a user thinks their personal fave is being "snubbed" or "overlooked", they could classify him more favorably. But even on the used site he only has 3 notable roles. However Gi-Hwa is not a notable film. Not sure if it was direct to video or what, but no listing on imdb. In fact, not even listed on Kim's imdb profile. The only other "main" role is on a non-notable tv production, The Reason Why I Drink. Other than that, insignificant supporting roles. But thanks for your insight. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I can see why user-generated sites wouldn't be reliable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 13 July 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) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kyros[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE coverage only, so fails GNG. Certainly fails NHOCKEY with no experience in an established, well-covered league (has only played in amateur and junior leagues). Played in the second and third tier of the IIHF championships, but those are only for promotion and relegation. Did not play for The World Championship which is only in the top division. Yosemiter (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Playing in the lower tiers of the IIHF championships does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 15 July 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) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hyde[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little coverage and all of it WP:ROUTINE. Fails GNG. Certainly fails NHOCKEY with no experience in an established, well-covered league (has only played in amateur leagues). Played in the second tier of the IIHF championships, but that is only for promotion and relegation. Did not play for The World Championship which is only in the top division. Yosemiter (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only routine sports coverage and playing in the lower tiers of IIHF championships does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:44, 15 July 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) 18:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Del Basso[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even finding WP:ROUTINE coverage for this player, so appears to drastically fail GNG regardless of NHOCKEY (which is still subject to passing GNG). Certainly fails NHOCKEY with no experience in an established, well-covered league (has only played in amateur leagues). Played in the second and third tier of the IIHF championships, but those are only for promotion and relegation. Did not play for The World Championship which is only in the top division. Yosemiter (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Playing in the lower tiers of the IIHF championships does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 15 July 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) 18:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Darcy[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even finding WP:ROUTINE coverage for this player, so drastically fails GNG regardless of NHOCKEY (which is still subject to GNG). Also fails NHOCKEY by only playing in the third tier of the IIHF championships, which is only for promotion/relegation, not for the World Championship.

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

Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing in the lower tiers of the IIHF championships is insufficient to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnot meet WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 20 July 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) 18:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loquo[edit]

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

Non-notable local classified website(s), defunct since 2016. A Google search revealed only a few short mentions and standard business notices. The current article contains no evidence of notability, and has also been misused to spam a XXX site (see history, the deleted link is NSFW). GermanJoe (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no claim of notability and no references. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Completely unsourced and fails GNG and NWEB as no coverage in RSes. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:35, 13 July 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 and rename to Rough ASCII, which is a more common term that has more source hits. Ultimately, there seems to be no strong desire to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RASCII[edit]

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

A search turned up nothing except two "what does this word mean?"-type sites. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage in reliable sources (fails WP:GNG). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scopist. This is a dictdef at best, and we don't need that chart. --Lockley (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm puzzled by this article. Is RASCII a rough draft format? Or a character set? What does "shifted" mean here? If this is a modal form (like Baudot) of ASCII, and it's true that it was adopted for court reporting in the US as early as 1960 (presumably those strange little machines I only get to see on old transatlantic TV cop shows), then this is technically interesting (ASCII is never modal) and worthy of an encyclopedia. Can anyone work to improve it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those "strange little machines" are probably stenotypes. According to the history on Stenograph's Web site, they were used at least as far back as the 1930's, and presumably didn't use anything related to ASCII back then; they might not have used any encoding, as the older machines appear to be typewriter-like, not teletypewriter-like. That history page mentions the "Stenograph Data Writer" from 1963, which writes to a magnetic tape, presumably in some character encoding, but that may or may not have been the encoding given on the RASCII page. That encoding has no citations for it, so we currently have no reason to believe it exists except in the imagination of whoever put it there. Guy Harris (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it exists. A moment's looking for it will (in typical lawyerese) find extensive legal argument on who should pay for it, and nothing at all on what it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't make it clear that "it" refers to the character encoding on RASCII. There may be a ton of lawyers referring to "rough ASCIIs" or "RASCIIs", but they could be called "(rough) ASCII"s because they're encoded in the American Standard Code for Information Interchange, or some extension thereof, rather than in the encoding given on the RASCII page. What's needed is a citation to believe that said encoding exists and is actually being used for digital legal transcripts. Guy Harris (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this is either a hoax or synthesis of two un-related (and non-notable) topics. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful before you call something a "hoax". I'm probably as astonished about the topic as you are, but some quick Google search already indicates that "RASCII" exists in general and is not something made up by the creator of the article, who, judged by the valuable info he provided for other articles, is acting in good faith. I can't comment on the specific character set mentioned in the article (yet), but that's an issue of unreferenced (and therefore possibly incomplete or confused) information, and doesn't affect the notability of the topic "as is". --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename. To be honest, I never heard of this one so far, but a quick Google search already reveals so many hits and congruent descriptions, that we can be sure it exists and is not made up (as suggested by another commentor). However, I found considerably more hits for terms like "Rough ASCII", "Uncertified Rough Draft", "Uncertified Unedited Rough Draft" and a few more variants than for "RASCII", so the article should probably be renamed into something like "Rough ASCII" (although that cannot have been the original name if it was introduced in the 1950s, as ASCII didn't exist before 1963).

As Andy points out further above, if it would turn out that a certain standard symbol or character set would (have been) used for these drafts, as described in the article, this is historically relevant to be included. Let's try to find a reference for it, even though it might turn out to be difficult if it's from the 1950s... However, that's about a reference for a specific info in the article, and it does not affect notability of "Rough ASCII" (or similar) as a whole, which can be easily established by a Google search.

Even though I think notability is given, let's try to select some of the better references turning up in Google in order to not leave it as an unreferenced article for much longer. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII started, I think, in 1957 but didn't get the name "ASCII" until 1960 and wasn't adopted as a standard until 1963. So there were "ASCIIs" before that date. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Citation needed] on that "started in 1957". And if it didn't get the name "ASCII" until 1960, there couldn't have been "ASCIIs", under that name, before 1960, except in a context where "ASCII" stood for something unrelated to ASCII. And there wouldn't have been "ASCII"s before court transcripts were put into electronic form. Perhaps the article should be about the notion of a rough draft of a legal transcript, but that notion isn't particularly tied to the American Standard Code for Information Interchange, except perhaps to the extent that, once transcripts were put into electronic form, they were recorded in ASCII rather than, say, EBCDIC, and those electronic transcripts were referred to "ASCIIs", perhaps because they're raw text in ASCII rather than something marked up in, say, Microsoft Word format. And, if it's about the notion of a rough draft of a legal transcript, perhaps it should be a section in the transcript (law) article rather than an article on its own.

And that character chart definitely needs a citation. Guy Harris (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't there have been ASCII before court transcripts?

ASCII grew out of the same US Navy work that gave us Grace Hopper, COBOL and CODASYL. It was an attempt to produce a rational character set that would be sortable in database use, without the modality of Baudot from the Telex world and without the non-contiguous, machine-dependent, punch card-derived BCD messes that would give us EBCDIC. The US Army had already done something similar with FIELDATA, but of course the USN would rather use Cyrillic than something from their real enemy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why wouldn't there have been ASCII before court transcripts?" Because there were courts, and court reporters, before there were computers. Next question? Guy Harris (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough with the snarky edit summaries.

You stated, "And there wouldn't have been "ASCII"s before court transcripts were put into electronic form." I questioned this. Maybe you're so unfamiliar with this topic. Do you think that ASCII exists only to support court transcripts? Do you think that court transcripts are the only reason for ASCII variants? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "ASCII"s I meant "those things that lawyers, and people supporting lawyers, call "ASCII"s, e.g. "rough ASCII"s". What did you mean by "ASCIIs" when you said "So there were "ASCIIs" before that date." Did you mean "character sets called ASCII" (which would have been drafts, not official standards, until the 1963 published spec), or did you mean "rough, and possibly no longer rough, ASCIIs, in the sense that the term is used in the legal profession"?

It is rather unlikely that the term "rough ASCII" would have been used before there was an "ASCII" to which it would refer. So, as Matthiaspaul said, "that cannot have been the original name if it was introduced in the 1950s, as ASCII didn't exist before 1963". Guy Harris (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(See, for example, this page from a court reporting service, which speaks of "converting a PDF into an ASCII" - not "to an ASCII text document", just "to an ASCII", so "ASCII", even without "rough", is used to refer to an ASCII text file. The plural would presumably be "ASCIIs".) Guy Harris (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of a few draft proposals of the ASCII standard before its first publication in 1963, but they are all dated after 1960. AKAIK, the first meeting towards ASCII was held in 1960. Andy, if you have better info regarding the early history of ASCII, please add it to the ASCII article.

However, regarding this "RASCII" article, we don't necessarily need to choose the original name (whatever it was) used for these rough court text drafts. If "Rough ASCII" would turn out to be the most commonly used term today, this is a valid title for the article, even if the concept predates ASCII. If another term is found to be more common, we can choose that as well. My point above was, that the present title "RASCII" does not appear to be the best possible title for the article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by nom

"a quick Google search already reveals so many hits and congruent descriptions"

"let's try to select some of the better references turning up in Google"

Which ones would those be? Don't waffle, add them to the article! Because I haven't seen any. Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a bunch of them to the article (there are many more), but don't have the time to pretty them up. Over time, we can select better ones, but this should already establish that the concept and term is real and is obviously commonly used in court environments, and is not something made up.

I could not find any reference discussing this particular character set so far. I agree that we should find a source for this, but researching this in libraries may take months or even years to find a reference. My point is that with or without such a particular reference, the topic "Rough ASCII" (or similar) "as is" is notable. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Half the article discusses a character set (which I don't believe exists), the other half discusses court reporting (and I believe "RASCII" is a jargon term for "rough draft"). Nobody here seems clear which one the article refers to. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to "Rough ASCII" (or similar). The character set table is nice extra info (if it can be verified), but does not affect the notability of the topic. This AfD is about the notability of the topic, not about individual information still being unreferenced in an article - that's something dealt with in normal article development, not at AfD. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page must be renamed if kept under that theory. Many of the sources [20] don't mention ASCII at all, and certainly don't mention RASCII. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:18, 15 July 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 Shair. The consensus established here- up to and including agreement by the nominator, and notwithstanding one non-policy-based del. !vote- is to redirect the article. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Imam Siddiqui[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO too. I tried level best to find some reliable, independent sources either in English or Urdu. Sorry to say the sources in this article are unreliable or doesn't demonstrate his notability. Times of India discuss that a magazine has a collection of all letters who's editor is Iftikhar Imam Siddiqui but that mention doesn't make someone notable. No mention in Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt etc. Harmony India is an organisation and is not a reliable source. No article on more organised Urdu Wikipedia. Greenbörg (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shair. The subject has been discussed several times by the reliable sources for his contribution to the Shair journal – [21], [22], [23], etc. He has also won few awards for his work for the magazine, as discussed here & here. Although few of those awards were given by state governments, none of them seem notable. Outside his work for the journal, he is only known for being one of the lyricists of Arth (film) – [24]. So, he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, and the page should be redirected to Shair. I would've suggested merge, but the Shair article already contains some information regarding him. And there doesn't seem to be any new relevant material in the present version of this BLP. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shair, per WP:ATD-R. A valid search term, and the subject is covered at the magazine article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:ATD-R. Greenbörg (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by User:Brookie as WP:G11 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flow (App)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Yet Another Unremarkable App. Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 13 July 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 a non-notable business. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mulligan Family Fun Center[edit]

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

Fails GNGs by a very large margin - the article consists of a single sentence with no sources etc. There's probably scope here to go speedy, but I want to err on the side of caution. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 10:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment - it appears that this article has already been deleted before, in 2006. Seeing as that was a delete vote for being unsourced and failing to meet WP:CORP, it stands to reason that the same will be true almost eleven years later. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 10:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is clear Speedy Delete. Not notable at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 July 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 that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primedice[edit]

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

Another bitcoin online gambling site. Couldn't find anything significant in the way of sources that aren't blogs or press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a casino.org source about hack. Thekid66 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)— Thekid66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Nothing in the article suggesting notability, the refs are clearly generated by the site or its employees and one is a simple listing. Searches show nothing extra. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. Cabayi (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources mention the subject in passing or as part of a phenomena, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 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) 02:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Public Safety Drone Academy[edit]

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

Neither reference even mentions the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is one source that discusses this academy, but the article will need brushing up with more third-party sources as they become available.TH1980 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotionalism only, as in "intensive flight training and federal licensure preparation academy" and "academy was developed through collaborative efforts by state and local regulatory and workforce training agencies" etc. Has all appearances of having been copied from a press release. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth, significant coverage from reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 12:49, 17 July 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 04:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overhead Champion[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails GNG, MUSICBIO and BASIC. - TheMagnificentist 08:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ANYBIO. No depth or persistence in third-party, independent coverage; indeed; my WP:BEFORE brings up mostly flyers and adverts. This is not good. — fortunavelut luna 18:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence of notability and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 17 July 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. The delete !votes are far from policy-based. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Pool, Houston[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG. Daily mail is not a reliable source. No discussion in detail found anywhere. WP:NOTEVERYTHING probably applies too. It's a swimming pool. A unique one, granted, but lacking any awards, being unique does not equate to notability. John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd actually heard of this thing and much more importantly, a Gnews search for "Sky Pool" + Houston yields decent enough results, well beyond the references currently on the article. It meets GNG and needs improvement, not deletion, from what I can see. I've added two categories. The article should be moved to Sky Pool, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete issa pool. Why would WP have an article about a pool? Should there be an article about other pools? When will the pools end? This pooling needs to stop before it overflows. Guys, it's a POOL. Who would look up a pool in an encyclopedia? I don't care if Captain John Paul Jones took a voyage in the pool, it's a pool and is not notable. It CANNOT be notable. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that a pool cannot be notable, even if it meets GNG, is utter nonsense -- and not policy-based. Indeed, you seem more interested in making puns and being flip than advancing any such argument. It's a glass-bottomed pool 40 storeys in the air that appears to be a bona fide notable tourist attraction. I won't badger but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Category:Swimming pools is replete with a number of other notable individual pools. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP would and does have articles about pools for many reasons including receiving significant coverage and being of historic value. Jesus Green Swimming Pool, Dalby Olympic Swimming Pool and Kennedy Town Swimming Pool are examples. As far as we know John Paul Jones didn't take a voyage in any of them. Not liking articles on certain topics isn't a valid reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It easily satisfies WP:GNG. However, it shouldn't be moved to Sky Pool, as a much more outrageous one has been announced for construction in London[25] and there's another a mere 40 feet above the ground in Italy.[26] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep My friend who says shall we create article about all pools should listen there are about 7.6 billion people in world. Shall we create article about every person? No. We shall create article about notable people. Likewise we shall not create article about every pool. We shall create article about just notable things and this pool is notable. I have not based my article on daily mail, I have based my article on a newspaper and a friend has also introduced links to Gnews in this discussion. Links to Daily mail were so that it can be verified easily, but even we exclude references to Daily mail, the newspaper is enough to verify my claims. Complete information of newspaper is present in first reference of this article. I am finding information about its construction, finance, planning, and visitors. Now It is a scratch of article. A good article is going to be drawn from this scratch. Do not consider its deletion, focus on improving this article. If it is small, declare it a stub and it will be changed to a good article by dear fellow wikipedians and me.

Sinner (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be plenty of coverage, all dating from the pool's opening in April. I wonder whether this will prove to be an architectural variant of WP:SINGLEEVENT, though I suppose it will likely get coverage in tourist guides, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot wait till it is included in some tourist guide. If current references are of single 22 April event, Read 11 July newspaper Roznama 92 news to get other references which are not about its opening so WP:SINGLEVENT will NOT apply to this article. Sinner (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems to me much of the coverage is along the lines of coverage of the coverage. It's doubtful this will be included in tourist guides (which would be directory type coverage anyway), as it is a private pool in an apartment building and not any sort of public attraction. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being in private apartment does not mean it is not notable while wikipedia already has a handful of articles about such pools. Wikipedia is not to discriminate between private and national architecture. The pool is already a popular tourist attraction site to confirm read Urdu newspaper 92 of July 11,2017 published from Lahore page 10. Sinner (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage from multiple sources, internationally no less.--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant coverage easily establishes notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete —, wow, what has Wikipedia deteriorated into. It is a pool. I mean, if this type of stuff keeps up, Wikipedia is going to be a dump pretty soon. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, pools can be notable. Besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is there any opinion based on notability guidelines? Speedy is out of the question at this point. --Oakshade (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale in the !vote above does not correspond with any of the WP:CSD criteria for speedy deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinions with me. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review. No prejudice against a merge to Market Square Tower. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is itself very notable and can stand as independent article. Sinner (talk) 11:56, 20 July 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 Man discography. Consensus is that this does not warrant its own article, however, per WP:NALBUM and WP:ATD-R, such articles should be turned into redirects instead, which Timtempelton has also agreed in their delete !vote. I'm not seeing anything in the comments by Cjhard or the nominating IP that indicates that they would oppose such an outcome. So Why 09:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friday 13th (album)[edit]

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

Procedural AfD for IP. Reason given: "deproded. discogs.com and progarchives.com are not reliable sources" [27]. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Allmusic review is reliable, independent, and shows notability - The Manband Archive is reliable, albeit not independent, and the rest add detail. - Arjayay (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and what about manband-archive.com? we need 2 to pass wp:n.68.151.25.115 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how is mandband-arhicve.com reliable? its a selfpublished source.68.151.25.115 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is correct that neither discogs nor progarchives are reliable sources. The Manband Archive, as a primary source, can't be used as evidence of the album's notability. The album does not meet the requirements of either GNG or WP:NALBUM. Cjhard (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether it could be merged/redirected to Man discography per WP:NALBUM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of any cultural impact. I don't see any of their albums on Amazon. Friday 13th can live on their discography page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 21 July 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.

While two editors claim the sources are not reliable, no further explanation was given. The fact that reliable sources often receive products from manufacturers to review and integrate options to buy such products alone does not disqualify a source from being independent, since this is and has always been standard practice. No current policy or guideline categorizes such reliable sources as non-independent just because of that. Receiving the product from the manufacturer might lead to a sources becoming non-independent, but that requires at least some proof that the source's coverage of the subject has been skewed by this. No such argument was made.

Arguments like "promotional", "not notable" or "Wikipedia is not paper" are not helpful in a discussion like this without further explanation. However, despite being challenged and two relists, none of those !voters explained why they thought the article was promotional or the subject not notable despite the sources provided. So Why 12:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN Art[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is a about a non-notable subject. The references included in the article are not reliable and a WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources for the article to meet the WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have since completed the article and included more notable third-party sources on the lens. Henceforth, I believe that the article conforms with the WP:GNG. Please contact me if any further edits are required. Chevy111 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the dxomark reference is independent and likely reliable enough. The DPREVIEW one just copied the manufacturer's description, so another independent review would be good to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional junk. WP:Not a list. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Can't find "promotional junk" in that article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or in recent years in websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." Edison (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @My very best wishes: I've clarified that this lens is the start of a new product line, and entry into a new market. If memory serves, this is the first time for Sigma Corporation to enter a new market in approximately a decade. This should also be mentioned in the Sigma Corporation article. Regards, Samsara 19:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We certainly should not list any "thing under the sun", but in Wikipedia we have an established practise to more closely keep track of product developments in some areas than in others. As pointed out further above already, we typically cover photographic lenses and cameras quite closely, in particular when produced by established manufacturers. They have encyclopedic value because they often have some unique properties or features, may mark some firsts, can have interesting optical formulas, and will likely become collectable items over time. And this applies to this series of lenses as well.

This particular lens is not a stellar-performance lens, but it is still notable for various reasons, including that it was the first dedicated third-party lens for Sony's then-still new E-mount, it was the starting point of a new series of Sigma lenses. Also, this article is not about this one lens only, but also about its successors (with same optical formula, but various other changes in design). The lens is discussed in form of announcements, reviews, hands-on reports, and technical tests in most photographic media, print and online, so it would be possible to throw dozens of WP:RS in to demonstrate significant independent coverage. However, the article already contains enough sources to establish this, more refs will probably be added over time.

Personally, I would like to see these articles to have more "flesh" and a much deeper coverage of the optical design and performance, but at least a starting point was made.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:26, 15 July 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. So Why 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Griffith[edit]

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

This article appears to be about Janice Griffith (pornographic actress) but only as it relates to an incident wherein she was injured while being thrown into a pool. Sources used by User:Neptune's Trident include TMZ, The Daily Mail, and something called M Star News. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of general notability. bd2412 T 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pseudobiography based almost entirely on a stunt gone wrong. No WP:PORNBIO notability claim. No biographical depth found in reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some sources outside of the pool incident that has some bio information.[28][29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete daily mirror isn't an rs. It's not the dm but it's still a tabloid. Gng fail= goodbye, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion on the new sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy didnt you read the bit where I already discussed the sources, the daily mirror is a tabloid and isnt a rs. This therefore does not meet gng and fails. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. However, don't you think the other participants should be given the chance to offer their opinions as well? Regards So Why 08:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - its demonstratively a tabloid, that's factual not opinion. Clear consensus to delete exists. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, you should spare the "factual, not opinion" rhetoric in demonstratively expressing your opinion. Evaluating the reliability of a source is a subjective opinion.[30] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Gene93k and Spartaz. And since when is a 4-1 vote, all with reaasonable, guideline-based rationales, not enough for a consensus? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep added references in the form of a Further Reading list on the article, all somebody needs to do is incorporate it into text. I'm sure there's more too, this was just what I found from a quick Google research and not an in-depth scouring for sources. Soulbust (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- if this is your idea of a reliable source then you need to reread our policy. Its full of tabloids and other stuff that clearly is not a rs about this subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 17 July 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike del Mundo[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill comic book artist that fails general notability. Article contains no independent references, but that may be because it isn't easy to find independent references, only information about his comics. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a comic book artist who is acclaimed by many who has worked on some of Marvel's major titles.tomburbine (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find it hard to reconcile "run-of-the-mill" with "Mike del Mundo may be the most impressive comics artist working at Marvel Comics today. We absolutely realize that is a bold statement, but it’s one we’re prepared to stand by." Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 13 July 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 with a week offering no other comments, nac, SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mouseion[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable ~~new~~ journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "Should we tell the University of Toronto their renamed classics journal is now considered "non notable" by some Wkipedian?" PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck "new", that was an obvious mistake, sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Which selective databases should a humanities journal be included in, in order to be notable, Randykitty? – Uanfala 09:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just two examples: Low bar: Scopus. Higher bar: Arts and Humanities Citation Index (contains about 2000 humanities journals). --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Press: Mouseion speaks for itself. The title is new. A university journal of Classical studies naturally struggles to compete for notability at Wikipedia. Project MUSE itself might well be deleted: no loss. Wetman (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The journal page does not speak for itself. We need secondary assessments of notability. Listing is in more than in Project MUSE however [31] (Emerging Sources Citation Index, IBZ Online, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, L'Année philologique, Art Source, MLA - Modern Language Association Database). I also don't know where Randykitty gets the idea this is a new journal. It's a journal that dates back to 1956. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the point in this request. An academic journal of long standing (irrespective of change of title) that might reasonably be cited in various scholarly works from the last sixty years and on into the future seems worthy of at least a stub article. Perhaps better sources should be found, or more details from independent sources, but those are issues separate from deletion. As long as the article is clearly not a hoax and the publication not utterly devoid of academic value, deletion seems unjustified. P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "As long as the article is clearly not a hoax and the publication not utterly devoid of academic value". I agree. Now please tell me how we are going to evaluate this without reliable sources? Our own opinions? --Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable sources. Don't delete just because you haven't found any yet. If it's a publication of the university, surely the university's own website verifies that it exists and what it is, and that's sufficiently independent of the journal itself, although the journal's self-description is perfectly appropriate for inclusion as a reliable, if primary source. If the journal is found in other academic libraries, that's reliable too. Try WorldCat to find out. I know citation to web sites is tricky, but at least those would prove the journal exists, what it's called, possibly what it used to be called, what its focus is, etc. It's just a stub article now, and it doesn't need to have encyclopedic information written about it in other sources in order to survive deletion. Nor is a deficiency in sourcing grounds for deletion, as long as that could reasonably be remedied. Many perfectly valid articles wait years for proper sourcing to be added; time is not really a factor. P Aculeius (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not one of WP:V, but one of WP:N. If no sources discuss it, it's not notable. @Randykitty:/@DGG: do the additional data put this in a pass for you? I'm not super familiar with them, but L'année philologique seems selective enough to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not appropriate to delete something merely because somebody else hasn't supplied the sources. However, even a really quick search for classical journals revealed that Museion is listed in the Society for Classical Studies' "list of journals in Classics that have a substantial on-line presence. These journals are not published by the SCS, but represent the vitality and diversity of the classicist's disciplines in a new medium." That endorsement alone seems to satisfy criterion "1b" for notability of academic journals. I'm sure with just a little digging much more would be found. P Aculeius (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for that? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. I'm sure more than this could be found by making more than the very briefest search. P Aculeius (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant journal, in the important indexes. We've never asked for actual independent sources for anything beyond verification for journal, and the Worldcat record does that. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- peer reviewed & published by the University of Toronto Press. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 20 July 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. So Why 08:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Goes[edit]

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

There is notability, but from what I see in search, it may be the case of WP:TOSOON. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. gidonb (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to mee GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 13 July 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 per G5 (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 15:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hira Hussain[edit]

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

appear to have minor roles in mentioned TV programmes. the sources are not reliable either except the Daily Times which only namechecking her. doesn't meet WP:ACTORS at the moment. Saqib (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she is the new actress of showbiz and upto, she has only worked in some television serials and 1 film. It will be expanded if she will become more notable. Daily Times is for cast of film but her film hasn't been released. If released, Daily Times will surely tell us and I will expand this article more but now please do not delete it.--Naniyaal (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Naniyaal:: when and if she appears in more TV progammes and films, and recieved some press coverage in reliable sources, we will definately have a bio page on her. But at the moment we cannot have because she doesn't merit one. therefore this page also falls under Wikipedia:Too soon policy. --Saqib (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, I have expanded article. Have a look on it.--Naniyaal (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough.. Dawn source only namechecking her. We need to have sources which discuss about her in detail and please only reliable sources. You adding unreliable sources which are not accepted and will not be entertained. --Saqib (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again have a look. I have expanded it more. At least now not unreliable sources. Please explain how to expand it but please don't tell minor mistakes.--Naniyaal (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreliable sources are not minor mistakes. I have removed all unreliable sources, please avoid re-adding them. --Saqib (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. unable to verify if she has played a major role in any of the tv shows listed in the article to pass WP:NACTOR and there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that address the topic directly and in details. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because according to WP:TOOSOON, the actress is a heroine of upcoming film. But here the actress had worked in some serials which have aired all episodes but 1 film only that hasn't been released. Dani yaal 09:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Naniyaal (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Khadr family. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maha el-Samnah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear what the claim to notability is, other than being related to other people. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 05:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note- The entire article Khadr family and it's links are very problematic for me. Why are these individuals getting such extensive coverage? Seems excessively undue and I really have to wonder if a family member didn't write all the articles themselves. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 05:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the extensive use of family photos.. . if anyone sees where I'm coming from and agrees, is there any other action we can take on the articles as a group? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 05:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should probably be a mass merge and redirect to Khadr family for these articles, but if you look at the details of the family photos, they have OTRS tickets confirming their release by the Khadrs into the public domain. While COI authorship may be a concern, use of the photos isn't. Madg2011 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khadr family - GretLomborg (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge to Khadr family. Really, there is very little her to support notability; heavily oversourced; noclear claim to notability. lacking WP:SIGCOV. Many sources merely mention this woman in article about her family, others are from minor, perhaps unreliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 19 July 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) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact (company)[edit]

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

Corporate Spam. Brochure in Wikipedia. Typical Press coverage. Non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable, same as its product. Article appears to have been created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The recent editing activity on this article is a clear example of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, and the regulars of this article appear to be treating the encyclopedia like it. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opi9516. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Seeing the amount of support for the topic's inclusion in the encyclopedia makes me think this nomination was a mistake. The solution to a WP:NOTWEBHOST case when the current revision is stable is editing, and the sources appear to be reliable enough for notability. Anyone who would like to comment on the SPI case linked in this discussion may do so at said page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD should not be used as a bludgeon in a behaviour/content dispute. The subject, a degree-granting public-private college, is a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. If the current article is acting as a web host (and I am unconvinced it is), then the solution is editing, not deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a university, and will probably be notable. Two sources are [32] and [33]. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic appears to be suitable for Wikipedia. NOT suitable content can be removed by editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:40, 15 July 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 Barbie's friends and family. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tutti and Todd (Barbie)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fancruft. KMF (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Barbie's friends and family. No indication this passes WP:GNG to deserve a stand-alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Barbie's friends and family as they have received rather minimal coverage (at least to the best of my knowledge). Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 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 a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 21:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molana Saad-ud-Din Tarabali[edit]

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

It isn't entirely clear what this article, with no references, is about, but it appears to be an opinion piece on behalf of Jama'at rather than a neutral point of view article. In any case, it is not a neutral encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this could have been speedy deleted because it has no sources at all and possibly copyvio. --Saqib (talk) 20:02, 13 July 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) 18:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Able (1917 automobile)[edit]

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

WP:OR since 2009 Cornellier (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look at the author's contributions, you will see that it's likely that they pulled this from some general directory book, but they did so incorrectly. That is, there is no 1917 car called "Able", though there is something like it--see Vernon Automobile Corporation, which I'm about to write up. In the meantime, delete this since it appears to be so wrong that it's not a useful redirect. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a redirect back to Vernon Automobile Corporation. Plainly and simply it is a model of a car, not a car maker specifically. Nördic Nightfury 06:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no such car and no coverage in independent sources that show how this is notable. Based on the deficiencies with this article as noted in this discussion, I don't think a redirect is appropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Steve Quinn above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:56, 20 July 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) 18:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Cricket Academy Jaipur[edit]

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

Non notable private cricket academy which has not produced any notable cricketer. Written like advertisement. Razer^Talk 08:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Elton-Rodrigues 16:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not seem notable and seems to be written to promote the academy/business. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 16 July 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 Supermoon. Clear consensus not to keep. Editorial discussion may determine whether there is any non-OR content that can be merged from history. Sandstein 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full moon cycle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be pure Original Research. Fails GNG. Probable HOAX. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first version of the article, from back in Oct. 2003 is instructive, providing a bunch of unsourced mathematical gibberish and noting that the term was first introduced in a list-serve post in Oct. 2002. Hardly where cutting edge science is published, eh? Carrite (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the 2006 deletion debate: (1) I'm surprised that no one before me has named the cycle. (unsigned) (2) Discovering and naming a phenomenon is original research. Lunokhod 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Carrite (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article does have several references at the end of it, negating the view that this is all original research. Most of the references are to books.Vorbee (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riddle me this: do those books mention this term at all??? Do they cover the topic in a substantial way? Anybody can stuff a footnotes section, that's not what we need to assess. Does reputable scholarship even consider this "Full Moon Cycle" concept to be a thing, or was it created from thin air and buried beneath a bullshit avalanche of math? Carrite (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top response from JSTOR (out of 5 total) is to an elementary education unit that is intended to teach 2nd graders about phases of the moon. I'm damned near slapping a HOAX flag on this POS. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HOAX flag is now up. Feel free to take it down if somebody can demonstrate that this "Full Moon Cycle" is actually a thing. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article hasn't been meaningfully changed or improved in the near-decade since it was found to be buried under a landslide of original research. By this stage it appears near impossible to disentangle this from any substantive, verifiable information that might be contained. If there is a need for an article such as this (and if the title term itself can be sourced) that isn't better located in related articles, then the only real prospect for that happening is to delete the article as it is now, and start again building on verifiable sources.Landscape repton (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete: This page is pure pseudo-scientific cruft that has no references to the actual fake science and was obviously not written by someone with even a basic grasp on the subject of astronomy. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect to Supermoon: This is completely original research, but I made a mistake with my logic. I apologize for my incivility. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 08:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supermoon. I don't think this should be tagged as a hoax, as the original author Tom Peters seems to be a long-term good-faith editor, with a strong interest in astronomy. It seems to be a more detailed mathematical coverage of the concept of supermoon and micromoon (the latter redirects to the former). But neologisms seems to abound here. Why full moon big rather than supermoon? Original research? Perhaps. Someone should verify the sources. Perhaps what was originally published in a list-serve has since been published in an academic journal? Google Ngram shows that the term "full moon cycle" has been increasing in usage since 1960, but look at the books using the term: Google Books, 1979–2003 – a term used to describe human relationships a term used in fiction. Redirect this to supermoon and maybe merge any valid, verifiable content that's not already covered in that article? BTW, I just learned a new word: syzygy. The similarity of that word to xyzzy had me thinking hoax, as in Colossal Cave Adventure, until I looked it up. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Supermoon, the superior-quality fork of this, was created as recently as 11 March 2011‎, while this article dates to 2003. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Supermoon. Not a hoax, but almost entirely original research on the page. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will pull down the HOAX flag on your recommendation. Carrite (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, perhaps it would serve a useful purpose to get the opinion of an ~~astrologer~~ astronomer, such as 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, to confirm the content? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so much an astrologer as an astronomer (though I have thought about whether it would be more lucrative to go into astrology). In any case, I agree with User:Power~enwiki's point that it is mostly original research, but not a hoax. It appears accurate to me, actually, though the jargon is totally non-standard. A Merge and Redirect to supermoon idea seems most appropriate as there may be some content worth rescuing even. The full calculations as to how 14 lunar months apply to this particular cycle might be worth inclusion. Also, I'll inform WP:FTN of this interesting conversation. jps (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{My sincerest apogees, J - my mind is still light years away in the Mondegreen, and now I've fallen and can't get up.^{Atsme📞📧} 17:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment - Yes, "Full moon big" sounds like something a non-native speaker might write and the full moon cycle term might be OR (I don't know) but the thing is a real thing. There are two important pairs of points on the lunar orbit: the ascending node, descending node and perigee and apogee (AKA apsides). The average time between Moon or Sun passing these all have absolutely accepted names except for this one: Moon passing node is dracon(it)ic month, Moon passing apsis is anomalistic month, Sun passing node is dracon(it)ic year (or eclipse year (or ecliptic year which I've never heard of which doesn't mean it's not real but I think is stupid since the Moon meets the ecliptic not the Sun, which is there 24/7). For some reason the Sun passing an apsis does not have a common term. (anomalistic year is already taken by the Sun passing it's own apsides) The Moon's apsides move prograde: 1 revolution every 8.85 years. As a result the average time between passages of the Sun and the perigee of the lunar orbit is c. 412 days (much more accurate values of the 8.85 number and thus the ~412 are available) The Full Moon is always 180 degrees of longitude from the Sun so Supermoons and Minimoons occur once every 412 days on average. And the weirdly stated cycle of Full Moons being um "full moon big", shrinking for 6 point something Full Moons (almost 7) then growing for c. 7 more really does happen. If named this cycle I'd call it the "anomalistic lunar year" but that term isn't too common on Google (because it's anomalistic and is basically a solar year adjusted slightly cause the apsis is always walking away from Sol and is a special kind of lunar year). (Note: Astrologers call the ascending and descending nodes the North Node and South Node but that's stupid since these are the only times the lunar latitude has no northness or southness whatsoever. And Supermoon and Minimoon are more of a popular science/casual stargazer term than a science term. Perhaps this will not be so in the future) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect/Weak Merge - I strongly highly advise to have a redirect to Supermoon as per other remarks proposing to redirect, but some key information if arises might if warranted get merged into said article but it's an option. Ryan (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll note as nominator that a redirect to Supermoon is fine for me; I'm not an astronomer (or an astrologer, ha ha!) but this article came up in an off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's Worst as an example of the most blatant OR violations. I'm happy that it's not a full-on hoax, actually; I certainly wouldn't know. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the original authors I like to comment.

First, this is not a hoax. There is a cycle of about 412 days that appears in the apparent size of the Full Moon, and also is useful for predicting eclipses. Also see Eclipse cycle: many such cycles can be constructed and some have been described and named only in the past century. As for this cycle, this became a topic of discussion in a mailing list on calendars (CALNDR-L) but apparently was unnamed. Karl Palmen coined the name "Full Moon Cycle" in 2002. One needs a name to talk about something, and neologisms pop up all the time. For example Snowclone is exactly the same as cliché, or "template" as English speakers would call it, and the practice can be found in literature since the 3rd millennium BC: but someone found it necessary to coin a new name for it in 2004, and apparently it caught on and got a lemma in Wikipedia.

@User:DarthBotto: your assessment as pseudo-science and fake science shows lack of insight. Not all astronomy is about black holes or lunar geology. Positional astronomy was all there was to astronomy before the 19th century; but the origin of the science, and indeed of science itself, was looking for regularity in natural phenomena like this.

If and to what extent the cycle was known and used in history is unknown. It was superseded by better longer cycles like the saros and the cycle of 251 lunations, which is very present in Babylonian astronomical texts but in 3 millennia also has not received its own proper name. The FMC is 1/16th of a saros and this division appears on the Antikythera mechanism as described by Alexander Jones c.s., as referenced in the FMC article.

I do argue that the cycle is of some current interest because of the regular media attention to supermoons. This FMC article explains why those occur.

Much of the article is about using the FMC to find the date and times of full moons (and new moons) and for predicting on which ones an eclipse can be expected; most of that is from my hand. This has been called "original research" and people question why it has not been published. The fact is that the FMC article describes a very simplified, dumbed down version of an algorithm published by Jean Meeus in his Astronomical Formulae for Calculators (ca. 1980) and his Astronomical Algorithms (1991, 1992, 1998), which I do cite as the reference in the FMC article. Meeus took the method from a paper by Paul Ahnert Hansen from Leipzig in 1857; Hansen published tables on the motion of the Moon who were the best of those days, but he hasn't got a Wikipedia article. Meeus filled in modern parameters for the lunar motion. I tried to publish a paper on the method with modern parameters back in 1985, but it was considered not sufficiently novel or of general interest for a scientific publication. So the chance of getting the approximation described in the FMC article published in a peer-reviewed journal (paper on electronic) is zero. There is a nasty chasm between what science editors consider too trivial to publish, and what Wikipedia guardians consider not trivial but "original research".

In the end encyclopedia's are written by people who know stuff for people who don't know. I understand that the content must be verifiable, but I find the criteria that people enforce on Wikipedia unworkable. Why must every number be published on paper before we are allowed to use it in Wikipedia? Why is it called "original research" every time I use a calculator? In the FMC and elsewhere (e.g. New moon) I provide my sources and explain the derivations in painful detail. Everybody with a secondary education should be able to follow the arithmetic and verify its validity. Why must the outcome be published on paper? It is trivial so not "original research" and impossible to publish. On the other hand it is tedious to have to derive the same number every time you need it, so there is merit to record the result once and for all. If you need verification, do the math if you are competent. If you are not, don't criticise.

As another example, there are some misconceptions on Easter which I have tried to address in Computus, giving the canonical reference, with the Latin text, and my translation. The Latin was removed because we are not allowed to use Latin that almost no-one understands in the English Wikipedia, and my translation because it was considered "original research" and|or unverifiable. Fact is that much old material has never been printed in an English translation. For example, Hansen's thesis from 1840 was still in Latin. And recently I learned that Wikipedia policy forbids using primary sources, anything you write must be from secondary sources. This means that much knowledge will be lost.

I imagine that rules such as these are introduced because the directors want EVERYONE be able to easily verify the validity of the content. However I think it is sufficient if SOMEONE can do the validation. Otherwise, Wikipedia can only contain things understandable by the least educated user, and will be of no interest to most people. Tom Peters (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers themselves don't seem to be the issues. See WP:CALC. However there is a lot of non-standard terminology which seems to have been invented for the article. jps (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of references in this talk article about non-standard terminology, but no examples of the non-standard terminology were given. Please explain what non-standard terminology you are referring to. Victor Engel (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the name of the article. No source calls it "full moon cycle" as such. Then go on to the lede. "Full moon big", "full moon young", "full moon small", and "full moon old" are all terms that are not used anywhere but in this Wikipedia article. Moving on, we see the coining of "perigee year" which is also non-standard and unique to this page. You can keep going through the article if you'd like, but this just illustrates the problem. jps (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The concept is certainly a real thing, but perhaps hasn't been of interest until the media's obsession with supermoons that began just a few years ago. This could explain why there aren't a lot of sources that talk about it. My suggestion is to clean the article up to make it more coherent and "encyclopedic". There's a ton of information there now that is not really necessary for explaining the topic. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" - I was a participant in the discussion on the forum mentioned earlier in this discussion, and I personally verified and derived separately the results contained here. As Tom Peters says, it just takes some arithmetic (using values found here in wikipedia, in fact) and a dedication of time. I would suggest that it not be redirected to the supermoon article. The supermoon and the full moon cycle are not the same thing, just like noon and a clock are not the same thing. Should an article on clock be redirected to an article about noon? A supermoon is an event within the full moon cycle, just like noon is an event marked on a clock. Victor Engel (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So he did the research and you checked his math. Textbook scientific OR. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 18 July 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. There's rough agreement here that the potential exists for an article on this topic, but the current article is so badly written, WP:OR, and poorly sourced, that it shouldn't be kept. No problem with somebody recreating this with better sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian influences in the Hebrew Bible[edit]

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

Article lacks citations and uses weasel words. Saberus (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There does seem to be some books on the topic, though not many, and I don't know how authoritative Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter seems worthy of a wikipedia article to me, although admittedly this page may be duplicating the content that appears in some of the "see also" links. Considering the extent of documented Egyptian involvement in Canaan from 3000-500BC it should be expected that the Egyptians would have influenced any religion that developed in the area. I for one am interested to learn what sort of influences these might be. Another well known link is between Psalm 104 and the Hymn to the Aten which I'll put in if I can find a suitable reference. Saberus's criticism seems to boil down to "the sources need improving" which doesn't imply that the article should be deleted. Woscafrench (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see it's been put in but without the statement from Miriam Lichtheim which I've added. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could do with some improvement, but just because it needs improvements does not mean that it needs to be deleted.Vorbee (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a poor article on a notable subject. Some scholars have certainly speculated on whether there is a link between monotheism in ancient Israel and the earlier attempt to impose it in Egypt. Some scholars have attempted to argue that ancient Israel was more polytheistic than the Bible wishes to assert. However we have no source but the Bible itself and links with Aten are essentially scholastic speculation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This article trends to OR and perhaps could be done better. I'd rather let a more capable editor write a new article than allow this to persist. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ... something :-). Pointless and OR, with copy such as: "It is generally accepted[by whom?] that some elements..." and "Some authors believe..." etc. There may be a notable topic there somewhere, but this article ain't it. WP:TNT this thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 19 July 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. Sandstein 07:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept man[edit]

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

DICDEF with not a single source, consisting entirely on original research. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same as a gigolo? Or sufficiently different? Unless there are some historical or sociological sources I'm missing, a redirect there may be a good option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:38, 20 July 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. Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki's American Adventure[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW in that I could find no reliable published sources for this show. The sources currently on the article are problematic. Source #1 no longer works. Source #2 is about the actress, not the movie. Sources #3 and #4 aren't about either the movie or the actress. Overall, a completely unremarkable show. Kbabej (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Kbabej (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as proper sourcing not shown. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant non-routine coverage by reliable sources. The only reliable citations in the article confirm that San Fernando Valley is the porn capital of California, nothing about the show. The dead link was a database entry with episode air dates but no significant content. An independent search got a one-paragraph entry in an encyclopedia of television shows (1925–2010).[34] Not enough to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion here should take into account the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiki Vidis. Aoziwe (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck? Immediately abort deletion! -rayukk | talk 13:20, 21 July 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) 18:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Benac[edit]

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

not yet notable uner WP:PROF: 1 minor book, 4 journal articles. Not notable as a politician unless he gets elected DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:Politician. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. We don't usually have biographies of candidates for political office unless they're otherwise notable, and the subject does not meet WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not elected yet, too soon. --Hirsutism (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a political candidate or as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for office do not get articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates, and this goes double for candidates in primaries — if they cannot be shown and sourced as already having cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because of the election per se. But this shows no preexisting notability as a professor at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF and WP:Politician. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 20 July 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) 18:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in New York: The Factors Affecting Their Educational Attainment[edit]

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

This is written as a position piece rather than an encyclopedia article. ... discospinster _talk 00:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks as if someone has taken their school paper assignment and pasted it into a Wiki article. WP is not for position pieces. --Kbabej (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominators. Opinion piece rather than neutral encyclopedic view. Also copyright issues. See edit summary in which author acknowledges having copied this paper. Copyright ownership is not sufficient with release. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:24, 13 July 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) 13:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conveyed concept[edit]

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

This article fails WP:DEL7 & WP:DEL8, and seems to have extensively mis-cited the sources provided in the references. See the TP for the efforts of an anon user to check and substantiate the references (though I do not share their belief this was an intentional hoax.) Also seems to breach WP:NOTNEO. Having hunted around, few sources seem to use the phrase at all, and no sources treat the term as the subject of verifiable coverage Landscape repton (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially removed the CSD as a hoax, because it didn't appear to be a blatant hoax. The IP's work however does confirm my suspicions that this is a neologism at best, and possibly a contrived term. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references I looked at all seem to be fictitious. Hoax or not this article is nonsense. Lmbro (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably hoax. Hopefully this will be deleted soon. Jliboe (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 year Hoax? Really?? It's been a minute give me some time to correct some links they go away after a while. I get over 2,000 hits on conveyed concept in quotes; I bet a number of them can used as sources. I'm having issues staying logged in here. I'm starting to think the accusation of the article being a hoax has somehow blocked my account. Sad how one voice, for whatever motivation, can cause another to have their account blocked with nothing more than an opinion. 68.170.224.31 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is complete nonsense. The number of hits is useful but not sufficient, e.g. "read book" (in quotes) gets 900,000; so what of it? Vikom (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made significant repair to source links that time had ravaged, more can be done but do what you will.Thedosmann (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the notability criteria for phrases? This is an article explaining the meaning of a phrase. There could be an article about "moved rock" explaining what it means for a rock to be moved. I am asking the question because I don't know the answer.--Truthtests (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above delete !votes. This appears to be a case of WP:NOTESSAY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 21 July 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.