Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 November	28 November >

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 SNOW delete. Quite obvious that many users agree this BLP does not meet GNG or NFOOTBALL. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Brown (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested prod with no clear reason given. Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Have searched for some form of coverage of the player but can find no instances of interview or articles on her wider career, nothing that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV as being anything other than trivial. Fenix down (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete footballers who do not meet the notability guidelines for footballers should have their articles deleted, unless they are notable for something besides football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to find this subject amongst the many others, but do not seem to be able to find anything to support a more in depth article which currently fails GNG, and unlikely to as the player has retired? a few years ago. Aoziwe (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest she has played professional football to pass WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything on her. There's a Lauren Brown footballer that committed suicide recently, but that seems to be another person. SunChaser (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and more importantly WP:GNG by a wide margin. Can always be recreated if and when subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, though the article could stand substantial improvement. bd2412 T 04:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalessandro's Steaks[edit]

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

oclsignificance only, no notability outside the region--the only reference from outside is discussing only that city. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some WP:AUD sources that reach beyond local coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birch, T. (2015). Discovering Vintage Philadelphia: A Guide to the City's Timeless Shops, Bars, Delis & More. Discovering Vintage. Globe Pequot Press. p. 49–51. ISBN 978-1-4930-1400-2.
Stott, Rob (July 4, 2017). "The 5 Best Cheesesteak Shops in Philadelphia". US News & World Report. – 3 ¶

Keep The is a cultural establishment in Philadelphia similar to John's of Bleecker Street in NYC. This establishment has received critical acclaim and national attention as per the sources listed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The New York metropolitan area is known for pizza, cheesesteaks, and hoagies, restaurants which receive critical acclaim on a national level are not run of the mill as per WP:AUD:

“

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

”

WP:AUD appears to allow significant coverage from regional reliable sources. Cheesesteaks do have significant cultural significance in the area. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest we also delete John's of Bleecker Street; if, as the article says, it is the 10th highest rated pizzeria in the US, we would probably be able to jutify articles for the highest, or even the first three, as with other competitions. We don't remedy over-coverage by increasing it. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a person from New York region, John's of Bleecker Street, Di Fara Pizza, Peter Luger Steak House, Katz's Delicatessen, are old guards of New York City cuisine, even if they fade from grace they are apart of cultural history. Other places which are newer I believe require extremely high rating such as gracing the top. Cuisine is significant to culture, not every region will receive as much coverage as NYC, but I am seeing the same type of regional sources describing these locations as significant to the Delaware Valley region. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lugar and Katz's are I think nationally famous., and significant to American culture generally & have I think been covered internationally. . These are reasons for having encyclopedia articles. DeMarco has been claimed as the best of its type in the city, but not the country; If this is a consistent rating it might be worth an article, though not the current promotional pseudo-article. . I see no justification for John's and Di Fara. This restaurant is not even sourced as the best in the city. The GNG is completely worthless for restaurants except a a minimum standard, because of the typically very wide extent of local coverage. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing references in local publications are just not enough to show notability for restaurants. Too much fluff and promotion to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birch, T. (2015). Discovering Vintage Philadelphia: A Guide to the City's Timeless Shops, Bars, Delis & More. Discovering Vintage. Globe Pequot Press. p. 49–51. ISBN 978-1-4930-1400-2.
Stott, Rob (July 4, 2017). "The 5 Best Cheesesteak Shops in Philadelphia". US News & World Report.

These source were listed for you are neither local nor trivial coverage. Also what puff do you see? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sources that cover the topic are not limited to "passing references in local publications". Were the above sources and regional coverage this company has received even considered? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a review of available sources, meets WP:GNG (although on a bit of a weaker level) and WP:AUD. Per research, this company is also covered in The Great Philly Cheesesteak Book, which is published by Running Press, an American publishing company and member of the Perseus Books Group. Furthermore, the article does not have a promotional tone, and would benefit from expansion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article needs work to make it less of an advertisement ("The meat is the real prize" ???) but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable place. Lots of coverage in different sources and even some writeups in books (do a google books search) that go into some detail and profile places all over the USA. I would improve it by taking out the advertising-like copy though. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT policy Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. and that the source provided is labeled as a guidebook violates this exact policy. WP:NOT supersedes GNG and GNG itself says must not be excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not. Policy matters on our principles, not special interest subjects. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the full guideline says "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city." - This restaurant is of cultural significance to the region which is why multiple national and regional news sources have covered it. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there is may, not is. After all, the other applying policy next to that is WP:Not catalog:

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. That we should host a list of "culturally significant places" cannot be outweighed by our own policy process of enforcing policy. Also, the comment under mine actually counters the amount of significant coverage in that it's about the food, not the restaurant". We certainly cannot accept information only on the food or those details since it would violate said WP:Not catalog as mentioned earlier in my comment. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia guidelines used the term may, so your argument can apply to even the most notable subjects. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Valoem here, "This restaurant is of cultural significance to the region which is why multiple national and regional news sources have covered it," and that partially copy/pasted rationales from policy pages taken out of context without providing full context "... can apply to even the most notable subjects." Makes perfect sense. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not voting full keep because there's limited indepth coverage here, as others have pointed out. Most of the media coverage is about the food, but not the restaurant, the subject of the article. (maybe that needs to change?) Nonetheless, the Tonight Show, NY Times and US World & News Report references I just added, compounded with the notoriety that cheesesteaks have as a mainstay of Philadelphia's culture, meet a bare minimum notability threshold for me. I'd like to see more restaurant coverage added down the road - and hope we don't have to wait until it closes to get it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until the restaurant closes, not this AfD nomination. ;-) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known Philly restaurant. Sources are sufficient for keep. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Considering the present state of the article, I'm going to withdraw the request DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memex Technology Limited[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability. Being adopted by one agency, however large, is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added various newspaper articles as references. While some are primarily related to specific sales deals, the Scotsman, Independent and Herald articles provide fairly substantial content about the company. AllyD (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition, it isd clearly promotional , in the style of articles written by undeclared paid editors--tho it was started back in 2008. Is it worth fixing? DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 28 November 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 Procedurally Withdrawn. The article is now located at Draft:Anne-Marie Hutchinson (lawyer). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Hutchinson (lawyer)[edit]

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

Article moved directly from draft to mainspace without review. No doubt an honourable and professional lawyer doing excellent work but the references do not get close to establishing notability. Most are from a professional publication. The BBC ref is simply a listing of a contributor . Nothing here get close to WP:GNG. If the author wishes to move it back to Draft and continue to improve it and bring it back through the review process, I personally would raise no objection. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally withdrawn. Article immediately returned to draft upon AfD notification. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 27 November 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 per user request. Hut 8.5 21:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Morton (politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Additionally, as it stands it is a blp whose only reference is twitter. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 since the author (and only contributor of substantial content) has now blanked the page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as Arxiloxos says, the creator has blanked it, but a previous version of the page shows it to be a pretty clear example of WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 27 November 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 Robb Report. Redirecting, because source and text is largely already at target. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty White[edit]

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

Notable through the Robb Report, which covers, and should cover, about as much of his bio as shows here. SPA created. Delete or merge. Anmccaff (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable publisher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Robb Report. The sourcing for White seems pretty thin, and is a subset of the Robb Report article.Jacona (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:ANYBIO. I don't see a reason for a redirect; there's no need to preserve the article's history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Robb Report per WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Bad Wizards[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have any independent coverage, thus making it fail our general notability guidelines. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work in progress, but I've added some independent sources discussing the podcast (or rather discussing the discussions on the podcast). This podcast is also ranked 2nd in the iTunes category 'philosophy', although I haven't found a way to link to this statistic which is found within iTunes.O. Prytz (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oysteinp: You need news articles, reviews in books, etc. to prove the notability of this podcast; having a high rank on iTunes in specific category doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned anywhere else. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz:I have provided several references to discussions of the podcast and followup discussions of specific episodes/topics. I believe these should be more than enough to prove notability. I find it strange that ranking in iTunes should not speak to its notability. It is the equivalent to a newspapers circulation numbers, which I find highly relevant. Ø. Prytz (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but there is only one reliable source that you have cited (The Philosophers' Magazine). All of the rest are blogs, which are not reliable. Also, it should be noted that we don't base things on notability in its traditional sense, but instead on verifiablity (which basically means coverage in reliable sources). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must object to what you say about blogs not being reliable sources for notability. They may of course questionable as sources on matters of fact, but in matters of notability I see no reason for blogs not to be "counted". If a topic or person gains widespread attention in blogs, podcasts, webpages, discussion boards etc, this must in my opinion also count as evidence of notability. The crucial point would be if these sources are independent (not created by e.g. the person in question). In the present case there is at least one "traditional print media" source as well. Ø. Prytz (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something has gained widespread attention or not isn't what notability determines; as per WP:GNG, it determines whether or not something is covered in reliable sources. Since blogs aren't reliable, they aren't used. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of notability here is quite conventional 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"', while WP:GNG gives one way in which notability can be determined: 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.' The phrasing clearly also allows content that has not been the subject of 'significant coverage in reliable sources', notability just has to be proven in some other way. I would for example say that the most widely circulated newspaper in the country would be notable as a subject by that fact alone, regardless of whether or not that newspaper, as a subject, is the topic of commentary in other newspapers. I also think that the terms 'reliability' and 'verifiability' are being inappropriately linked to 'notability', but that is perhaps a discussion in some other forum. Ø. Prytz (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case: I've added more references to reliabale sources, and cleared away three blog entries from the reference list.Ø. Prytz (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't for the validation or promotion of a subject, it collects what falls under WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I looked for reasons to keep but there weren't enough. gidonb (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Pritchard[edit]

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

Biography of an interior designer, not properly referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to be considered notable per WP:GNG. The only references here are her obituary in the local newspaper of the city where she worked, and her own employer's internal corporate newsletter -- which means one source is primary and the other is routine, and neither assists notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks sufficient references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She was a designer at Green Blankstein Russell, an architecture firm in Winnipeg. She has a modicum of local notability: An online bio at the Winnipeg Architecture Foundation, but I am not finding enough to keep and the sources on the page are not persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 29 November 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) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed B. Ali[edit]

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

Most of the coverage seems to be about Cavium. No significant coverage for him. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect for search purpose. Störm (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability is not inherited from the company, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. Raghib Hussain[edit]

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

Most of the coverage found is about Cavium. No significant coverage for him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New News:

Marvell Confirms $6 Billion Purchase of Chip Maker Cavium

https://www.wsj.com/articles/marvell-confirms-6-billion-purchase-of-cavium-1511181231

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in-depth coverage in RS. most of the coverage focus around Cavium. Redirecting to Cavium is another option. --Saqib (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CareDx[edit]

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

The sources are all either connected to the company (interviews, press releases, rehashes of press releases) or routine reports. It indicates low notability, especially for a company with nearly 20-year history. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH.

Also, a new single-purpose account creating perfectly formatted articles for a company and its CEO is a strong indication of undisclosed paid editing. Rentier (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage in both the article and in searches: database listings, stock reports, press releases, etc. Nothing available to demonstrate passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of Arabic[edit]

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

Unsourced, probably original research. Burzuchius (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Comment Cyrillization of Arabic and Cyrillization of German have corresponding articles on the Russian wikipedia, where they look appropriately sourced. – Uanfala 14:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all 5 articles have a basis in systems commonly used, however unofficial, to which they were simply recording such for Wikipedia purposes. I would also like to add that in the circumstances of Cyrillization of Hungarian and Cyrillization of Georgian, there is at least one credible source, and for Cyrillization of Arabic and Cyrillization of German, as Uanfala acknowledged, both have co'responding articles in Russian at ru:Арабско-русская практическая транскрипция and ru:Немецко-русская практическая транскрипция (along with de:Deutsch-russische Transkription). The Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature is, indeed, an attempted standardization unofficial transcription system already in use and, as such, is suitable for deletion. User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 20:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cyrillization of Arabic and Cyrillization of German. They are well-sourced on other Wikis.

Weak keep Cyrillization of Georgian and Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet. Unsourced, but they look genuine enough. Note that Samuel P. Bateman, linked in both articles, redirects to Sovietization where he is not mentioned.

Delete Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature as admitted WP:OR – "this article uses a reconstructed pronunciation from various languages". The citations all relate only to IUPAC nomenclature in Latin script. Narky Blert (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature which is borderline nonsense. I'd lean towards keep-ing the others, especially as this is a bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything except Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature. Transliteration systems are inherently notable, I believe, since there is a history and literature about the development of each. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyrillization of Arabic and I have a thought/suggestion. Although it has no reference now it is verifiable academic topic which no educated person can doubt. Its Russian version is well sourced and have many print sources. Also this concept is treated in many academic books by respected academic publishers, Oxford UP, Routledge and others. The nomination reason is also invalid reason for deletion. Please see the valid reasons for AfD. First reason is one-word "Unsourced", not only this is invalid deletion reason the article has many sources in Russian version, and we don't delete content that are verifiable and unsourced per guideline WP:NEXIST. the second reason is also empty, we don't deal with probable on Wikipedia we deal on verifiable. The nom is not certain it is OR, but he is merely thinking. When he is sure, he can renomite with detailed reason and evidence. I am also calling for this AfD to be unbundled, because it hinder fair assessment of each article's merit. And no strong valid reason for deletion. If the nom wishes he can nominate each article with detailed, clear and valid reason for deletion. I am saying this because all these topic are academic concepts not trivial local musician bio or village market that we can summarily delete after few delete, delete vote–Ammarpad (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything except Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature. I'm in agreement with those above who defend the value of some of these - they are useful, and easy (for linguists) to police. The chemical article, besides being indecipherable, seems to be very narrowly focused on just one area, and people would be better served in this instance by going to a translation tool. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 18:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Steaks + Soda Shop[edit]

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

Local restaurant with nothing noteworthy except a name change, which would fall under NOT NEWS. the sources are local, except for one travel guide. (I know it's been in DYK on the main page; a/c the template "passes newness, copyvio check, hook interest and citability, " What it does't pass is notability. and WP:NOT. Looking at the instructions at WP:DYKR, those comsiderations are not included among the criteria.) DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not a regular cheesesteak joint, it is currently a top rated awarding winning restaurant and has received national acclaim and has surpassed Geno's Steaks and Pat's King of Steaks in ratings. The restaurant has received the same coverage as The Halal Guys, and is a notable restaurant which passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every cheesesteak joint is "a top rated awarding winning restaurant", surpassing Pat's and Geno's in local ratings in one or more of dozens of local publications over the years. Ask them and they'll tell you which ones. There's a fresh crop of them every year from Philadelphia magazine, the Inquy, the Daily News, South Philly Review, Fox 29, NBC 10, etc. What we need is substantial coverage in non-local reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets the GNG per a source review, and also meets WP:AUD having received national-level coverage (AUD examples: [1], [2], [3], [4] [3 ¶]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a LOT of local coverage and even some national. Also found it in a book called "Roadfood, 10th Edition" - which catalogued restaurants all over the country and had a long writeup about this one. I think it passes the test. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon Songwriting Contest[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial undertones, about a songwriting competition. Being named after somebody famous is not in and of itself a notability pass for an award, but this isn't sourced well enough to actually clear WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH -- of the six footnoted references here, three are primary sources (its own self-published website, a press release on the self-published website of one of its corporate sponsors, and a mention on the "my awards" page of the self-published website of a non-notable past winner); one is a brief namecheck of its existence in an article that's about another non-notable past winner in his own hometown newspaper; one is the mere caption to a photograph of yet another non-notable winner; and one is a glancing namecheck of its existence in an article about the general concept of songwriting competitions. And the "further reading" link is to a blog, so it's not bolstering notability either. As always, every music award is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- it has to be the subject of enough reliable source media coverage about it to clear GNG, but none of the sources here are showing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom put it best. Spirit of INVALIDBIO applies. I believe there was a specific policy for that, but cannot remember it off the top of my head. South Nashua (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akos Gurzo[edit]

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

Mccapra (talk) 15:17, 27 November 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 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanthi D Suresh[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Many of the refs make no mention of her and those that do have little reliability. Author is an SPA who performed 10 trivial edits before putting this into mainspace fully formed. Reads very much like a puff-piece and probably a paid for puff piece Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Per nom, the citations in the articles have nothing about the subject, I would say it is WP:MADEUP by someone closely associated with the subject. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. This is a redirect, which should be discussed at WP:RFD. However given that it goes to a relevant, sourced section, it seems unlikely to be deleted. If the issue is with the veracity of the content, that should be done at the talk page of the article it redirects to. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Haiyan (2007)[edit]

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

Not anything MCC214 (talk) 09:26, 27 November 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 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close; this was a redirect. Jc86035 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 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 08:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahad Alshemari[edit]

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

Stub bio of non notable journalist who lacks independent coverage to meet WP:JOURNALIST. Reference bombed lead section are reports and news of the journalist not about him. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:JOURNALIST HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cugno[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. No coverage in independent, reliable sources found on before search. Jack Frost (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for voice actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is not an improvement over the version that was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Cugno — in fact, it's significantly worse, containing even less substance and not adding any new sources that actually count as reliable or notability-assisting ones. (And just as a reminder, I was actually the original creator of the first article about him, so I'm in no way biased against him — but as our sourcing and notability standards tightened up over the years, I found that I couldn't locate the depth of reliable source coverage required to actually make an article about him sustainable under our inclusion and referencing requirements.) Voice actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they exist, or because their existence can technically be "referenced" to IMDB-like databases — they get articles only if and when they've received enough media coverage to properly support an article. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't like adding "me too" votes, but there really isn't anything I can add to Bearcat's excellent commentary above. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navona Records[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are not providing suitable coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 27 November 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. Sandstein 08:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Miller[edit]

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

Fails ANYBIO and NCREATIVE. John from Idegon (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am in the view that both nominees (as his brother Judah Miller is now also nominated for deletion) are notable enough (or at a minimum should not be immediately deleted to let others work on the page): they each have been the writer for several important shows and they both have been nominated as part of a team for an Emmy. If a team wins an Emmy, everyone on the team gets an Emmy. Murray and his brother Judah are the sole writers for both nominations (and the writers are typically the bread and butter of an animated film). I am not sure how much notability the current controversy imparts. Here are the links to the citations that were deleted which I believe should remain which both name the subject: "Outstanding Animated Program- 2008". Television Academy. Retrieved 20 May 2017. "Outstanding Animated Program - 2012". Television Academy. Retrieved 20 May 2017. Here is the link to Murray Miller's exact Emmy profile http://www.emmys.com/bios/murray-miller Patapsco913 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Patapsco913, no disrespect intended, but altho this is apparently the first time you've faced this issue, it isn't the first time it's come up. A show being given or nominated for an award does not in any way speak to the notability of the people who worked on it. Your opinion on that is irrelevant. It's just the way it is. If he would have been nominated for "Best Writer", that would matter. The show being nominated doesn't and that's not a valid issue for this discussion. It would be at WT:Notability (people), but a discussion on changing the guidelines would not resolve prior to this discussion's close. John from Idegon (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I though articles for deletion discussions were for people to give their opinion but now mine is irrelevant? Anyhow, the subject's notability is based on a combination of his filmography (see the extensive list on IMDB which mirrors the Pages that link to "Judah Miller" on wikipedia) as producer and writer (and occasional voice actor) combined with his two Emmy nominations as one of two writers (along with his brother Judah Miller in an animated series (where writing is everything).Patapsco913 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patapsco913 brings up some valid points why this article should be kept. Vistadan (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 12 mentions in the New York Times alone since 2001. Obviously noteworthy. No need to delete. Gerntrash (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerntrash, can you please share any of these sources? John from Idegon (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genzlinger, N. (2017, Jul 07). A clean tour de france? ha! New York Times

Genzlinger, N. (2015, Jul 10). Grand slam, no target spared. New York Times

Shattuck, K. (2017, Jul 08). What's on saturday. New York Times

Stanley, A. (2003, Feb 04). A new show blessed for what it isn't. New York Times --Gerntrash (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the information back that he was part of the team that was nominated for the Emmy. Over and over and over again I see people listed as winning or being nominated the Emmy for teams that they were part of (e.g. Bill Hader, Matt Groening, Vernon Chatman, Rob Sorcher, John Frink, Chuck Patton, Rich Moore...etc. I could provide more (I am just picking the most established articles to show that this is a well-established practice on Wikipedia to list someone as winning or being nominated for an Emmy when they are part of the team behind it). That is why I added Crew Roll to reflect that. Otherwise when Schindler's List wins an Academy Award for Best Picture, we could not say that Steven Spielberg won the Academy Award which we do (see List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg#Academy Awards. Miller and his brother were the two writers of the script that won the Emmy. A writer in an animated series is pretty important, probably more important than all the co-producers. Patapsco913 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Murray Miller is also now notable because of the allegations that Aurora Perrineau has directed at him--and the controversy that has arisen around those allegations. We should keep the page in order to properly record the outcome of those allegations. I also note that the request for deletion comes at an interesting time in that it is contemporaneous with the allegations. --CarlJParker (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two time Emmy nominee who has served as a writer and executive producer for multiple series. Clearly notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judah Miller. Accusations such as [5] should not be a reason to keep an otherwise non-notable bio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:54, 30 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TwitArt.com[edit]

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

non-notable website. Only mentioned in passing or in a list. Little, if any coverage from reliable sources. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article s woefully inadequate to show notability. My own searches turn up nothing better. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable website with promotional content. The conjecture in the article makes it hard to determine whether this is a company or a website, but the latter is true. Fails all points of WP:NWEB –Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qapacity[edit]

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

fails WP:WEBSITE. Barely any coverage other than a Mashable post whichs appears as if it could have been "sponsored/paid" for by the company for promotional purposes. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reasons above. Dbsseven (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete ,,,, Big whoop, an industry company that has been around longer than a few weeks, no big story. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MasterChef 2016 (UK)[edit]

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

No sources, plus none of the other series have articles dedicated to itself. BangJan1999 20:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems odd to have an article for this series, but no other as there was nothing more notable about this particular series than any other of the programme. Equally the article is just table so is of very limited use. Moreover as the nominator notes it is unsourced. Dunarc (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally thought to merge this into the main MasterChef article but there is not really any encyclopedic info to merge, so I suggest delete. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 22:15, 28 November 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. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Singapore)[edit]

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

there is no formal recognition for this title in Singapore and there are no proper sources for this article Jane Dawson (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Leader of the Opposition (Singapore)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such post, no coverage on it. R22-3877 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Proposer is not trying hard enough to look for citations. I have inserted 2 news citations and others can be easily found going back to the first singapore elections. Most democracies have acknowledged defacto opposition leaders and there are no disputes in singapore. Workers Party currently have 5 members of parliament with no other opposition parties involved. This article is a useful record of the of the most successly opposition parties in our history at any time..118.200.82.126 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IP. Many positions in Westminister-style democracies are not "official", and the coverage of the unofficial positions such as who is the de facto leader of the opposition is something that Wikipedia should cover. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Church of the Deaf[edit]

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

Just an average non-notable church. The first nomination produced a list of sources allegedly useful for the article, but they're unreliable and/or tangential; if that's the best you can do for a keep rationale, you've reinforced the reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Keep I have added a three INDEPTH sources. More exist. Note that the church had a notable pastor, Bob Rumball, a former pro ball player, who served this congregation for over half a century. Long-standing connections with a notable a pastor correlates tightly with coverage supporting notability, as is the case here. Nothing "average" about this church. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat reluctantly. It's clearly not an "ordinary" church, but it's quite small and I don't think it meets notability standards. PK T(alk) 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded it using material in citations from the article on Bob Rumball, including information about the purpose-built Centre in which the church meets, and it meets notability requirements now. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PKT called for deletion because the church is "small". That was a mistake, IMO. It is not the size of the institution that matters, it is the number and quality of the available references. There are sufficient references. Period. Geo Swan (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable because it is unusual in catering to particular disabled community. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep Wikipedia's notability asks the question, "Has the topic been noticed?". From one of the sources in the article, "This month, the Bayview Ave. centre that bears [Rumball's] name celebrates its 30th anniversary as a Mecca for the deaf and hard of hearing across the GTA." The word Mecca says that this topic has been more than noticed. Unscintillating (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

ITIM: Resources and Advocacy for Jewish Life[edit]

The result was Withdrawn - Original rationale was largely TNT based on overt and unsourced promotionalism. In the interim, the page has been turned into something resembling an article, and a number of reliable sources have been found and added. Duplicate article found and redirected to boot. There's still may be a discussion to be had regarding what the most appropriate title may be. GMG ^talk 13:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is not just totally unsourced, but seems to have always been so, and if it was created in it's current form I'd probably nominate G11. I'm surprised to find it's actually not COPYVIO. Maybe, maybe there's something hiding in the history that could be saved as a stub.

The name is sufficiently generic so as to make finding sources difficult in English. A search in Hebrew returns a lot of results, but I can't tell if it's just coincidental results like English searches seem to mostly be. Also no Hewbrew wiki article to compare. The court, Giyur KaHalacha, seems to be almost certainly notable, but it's not clear at all that the parent organization has sufficient depth of coverage.

At any rate, there's really nothing here that would need to be saved if someone were to write an actual encyclopedia article, save the info box. If someone wants to do that I'm fine with it and happy to withdraw, but barring that, I don't see a compelling reason to leave this very TNT worthy blatant advertisement sitting around for another five years. GMG ^talk 13:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - subject is probably over the notability on Hebrew sources (and I see an IP editor has been adding some English sources - all be it many passing - e.g. Guardian and NYT) - this advocacy organization has existed for quite some time and does have probably what counts as SIGCOV (I think beyond borderline pass, but not a clearly obvious pass, and yes - the name being a common Hebrew word does make sorting out the weeds vexing). user:GreenMeansGo does make however a persuasive argument for TNT in the current article form. I would suggest to the IP editor making improvements to focus on sourcing and cutting down the promotional language.Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- following some article improvement. I still think this is a tad promotional, but the org is notable and deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added a search bar on ITIM + Farber, this keyword narrows search and brings up sources only on this ITIM center. (the center's director is Seth Farber).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep searches on ITIM + Farber (as a keyword to narrow search; the center's director is Seth Farber) bring up more than enough WP:SIGCOV in English to source a solid article. Plus a search on ITIM + Farber on NYTIMES.com brings up 3 articles over a decade with material on ITIM's role in the Israeli political discussion around legal standards for conversion to Judaism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article does need significant improvement, but English and Hebrew show significant coverage. I would not be opposed to a merger somewhere appropriate either. Neutrality^talk 02:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting User:GreenMeansGo and User:Icewhiz to revisit using new search bar and keywords.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PROBLEM We have two articles on this NGO. ITIM: The Jewish-Life Information Center and ITIM: Resources and Advocacy for Jewish Life. One started by User:IZAK in 2014, the other by User:Amirwolff in 2010.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I can live with it. I hacked it down to a stub, added the source from the alt article, and redirected the alt per the wording on the logo, which actually seems to be the former logo, and is no longer used on the official website. Some kind of parenthetical disambiguation may be more appropriate. I'm not super enthusiastic, since most of the sources in the alt search seem to be about the person and not the organization, but combined with the original searches and whatever is available in Hebrew, it's probably keepable, and probably expandable especially if someone speaks Hebrew. No prejudice against another nom if someone can thoroughly vet the non-English sources and decides otherwise. GMG ^talk 11:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY fleshed it out a little. Plenty of the sources adding "Farber" as a keyword pull up INDEPTH coverage of the organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help How do I create a search bar that uses ITIM + Farber as separate search terms in the searchbar on this page? using both keywords brings up great sources. Using "ITIM, Farber", not so much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries E.M.Gregory. I've added a bit extra just for good measure. AfD isn't cleanup, but when the deletion rationale is largely TNT, sometimes it is. Now that Icewhiz has flipped, I'm free to withdraw. GMG ^talk 13:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PerimeterX[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an early stage tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, or routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/JonathanBentz currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Being one of "20 Cybersecurity Startups to Watch in 2017" is an insufficient claim of significance. Instead, it strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Naming notable topics in an article does not indicate that the article itself is notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Per TonyBallioni's point, I would not consider press releases about raised funds to pass WP:NOTSPAM. WP:CORPDEPTH is also failed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article of non notable company founded 3 years ago and lacking significant coverage in independent sources –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Public Broadcasters by country[edit]

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

Unsourced and duplicates the scope of the much more comprehensive article on public broadcasting. The title goes against WP:CAPITALIZATION, so it is not something we should keep as a redirect. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it may need work, but it is worth keeping. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list's topic seems to be noteworthy and should be kept. The list's issues at the top could be fixed easily in short time along with more content added to the list and hyperlinking some of the terms within it. By simply searching history of BBC (BBC is first term on the list) for example, information can be found in the first source on google, this topic does in fact meet WP:GNG. Grapefruit17 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does nobody here notice how this list and topic are already covered in Public broadcasting#List of public broadcasters? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Public broadcasting#List of public broadcasters or go the other way and expand this list with the latter's entries. The table here is more informative than the simple list in Public broadcasting, though I'm a bit dubious about the Member column. The National Association of Broadcasters isn't the same type of organization as the European Broadcasting Union or the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the list from Public broadcasting into this article. Article name needs renaming to comply with capitalisation conventions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 29 November 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 Pearl Gluck. Sandstein 08:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Joel Baum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Just because a notable actor played init doesn't make it automatically notable. Domdeparis (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pearl Gluck and merge any useful content into that article. This short film has zero independent significant coverage. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmer Volumes[edit]

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

Article is a list of all the DVDs produced by the Shimmer wrestling federation. One event, if major (such as a PPV), might be worthy of an article, but not every DVD release. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete?

I see this page was marked for speedy deletion. Shimmer Women Athletes is pretty unique in North America, being an all female wrestling promotion with annual iPPV's and 5-8 live events a year. It is sustained primarily on DVD sales which is how most of its fans watch the shows. Many of the talents that appeared in Shimmer went on to perform in TNA/Impact/GFW and WWE (as well as other shows like Lucha Undergroundand the recent "GLOW" remake on Netflix) and the first champion there is now the head women's trainer for WWE. The page is a handy place to find the match listings, champions, etc, for the promotion going back to the beginning. We have pages for all the title holders and main event results for WCW, ECW and WWF going back in time, so why not something similar for this unique promotion that is relevant to today's wrestling and streaming tv? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.175.184 (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable to list every DVD release. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think a relevant question would be if this was a list of shows, would it still be AfD? If so, fine. If a list of shows rather than DVDs is what would be more notable, then the article can be saves. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentGood question. There have been 99 Volumes (96-99 were recorded this past weekend). It takes about a year for a volume to appear on DVD. 1-25 are also sold as streaming (plus the handful of iPPV shows recorded outside Berwyn, IL). But all of the Shimmer shows are considered "Volumes." Volume 1 & 2 have been released together as a DVD set but it's not listed there (same content as the individuals). If it's that big a deal, I say rename/reclassify it, don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.92.223 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveats I hate the article and the way it is setup. Detailing releases going back 12 years is way too much for one article to handle. That said, the "Shimmer Volumes" subject may be notable and could be covered in a more encyclopedic way. If we decide that we should include tables of match results, maybe we should break it down by year (i.e. 2005 Shimmer Volumes, 2006 Shimmer Volumes, etc). I would recommend expanding Shimmer Volumes to give include more background information once the tables are moved to new articles.LM2000 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree on this one as above. I'm pretty sure Shimmer results could be considered notable; so the idea of important results, or show match results per year is better in my liking. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a notable promotion with a number of releases. I do not believe this should be a list with every result of every event. It should be converting into prose and discuss the series with highlights of key events. - Galatz ^Talk 14:44, 28 November 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 08:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aneros[edit]

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

This is an an advertisement disguised as a wiki page. Not reliable sources. Herimo95 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough coverage to indicate this is a notable company. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on a google search (I look forward to the targeted ads I will soon be receiving...), the coverage seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Most references to "Aneros" are passing mentions, such as recommendations to try "Aneros XYZ" or "Aneros ABC" with occasionally some added statements by Aneros spokespersons. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of meeting the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Hillman Consulting[edit]

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

Non notable consulting logistics company , Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable corporation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable electronics company. Accredited? Yes. Notable? No. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Lodge[edit]

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

Non notable lodge, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Although there seem to be one or two reliable databases that cover this lodge, there aren’t enough reliable sources that otherwise discuss it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 29 November 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.