Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 November	29 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Habibaj[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. I could not locate reliable secondary sources to support claims of notability made in the article. Comatmebro (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:NOTLINKEDIN ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Kaze[edit]

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

Supposedly a famous manga artist, but none of the works listed here have articles, and there's no sourcing to indicate how significant he is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm goign to say Keep, mostly based on a hunch that we have his/her name translated wrong. when I put the Japanese name into Google, I get his/her JP wiki page, and there are also massive image results for the japanese character name.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a solid argument as the article on the JP wiki page contains just one source which roughly translates to "author's profile" (self primary source). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we keep articles based on evidence not hunches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being able to find sufficient sources for WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those sufficient sources for WP:GNG? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google News in Japanese. gidonb (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to present specific sources to demonstrate the individual passes WP:NOTE, not allude to the existence of sources. —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per WP:NEXIST under WP:NOTE we do not have to present specific sources. The title says in bold and large letters: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It's a common misunderstanding in AfD discussions, just not often brought with the policy that refutes it. So while I should not present said sources, just my honest opinion based on checking the sources, you should not make such demands of others! gidonb (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not finding much, but did find this niche piece[[1]] and this very brief mention.[[2]] The problem is, the brief mention says that his manga was the first published in the US with its artwork intact. Does that meet WP:GNG, for being the first at something, or is it too obscure? I'm going to defer voting until I hear what others think about this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comipress one is good. That's a translation of the Manga Zombie book which has writeups of a bunch of different manga artists. Here's one by Manga News (French news website) [3]. The other one is okay as a passing mention but helpful to support the first intact manga published statement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:14, 6 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) 19:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChangeJar[edit]

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

Non notable fintech company; all available sources are merely run of the mill venture funding reports etc. that do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article produced by a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.--Auric talk 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn product / company of 5 ppl, strongly suggesting it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Coverage is in passing or routine, failing WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some exposure but unclear if the company is a keeper even outside WP. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 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) 05:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bank robbers and robberies[edit]

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

Random list of bank robberies or robbers from around the globe. The sole criteria is that is was a bank robbery or robbed a bank. No other defined criteria. Appears to an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of events that lacks a clear WP:LSC and is overbroad. Could work better as a category. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to category. I agree that a list of the criteria "robbed a bank" is over-broad. cnzx (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the nominator means is to narrow it to List of bank robbers, as that's the focus of the existing Category:Bank robbers. Otherwise I'm struggling to understand the rationale of either the nominator or the commenter. postdlf (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant at all. Merely saying "list of bank robberies" is overbroad. That's like a "list of people". Bank robberies occur dozens (perhaps hundreds) of times every day in the US alone. Most don't even make the front page of the local newspaper, let alone be encyclopedic. As it stands, this list would include a bank robbery that netted $30 million and a bank robbery that netted a $20 bill. In addition, there are entries that don't actually belong. Robbing an armored car isn't a bank robbery. Neither is a hotel or breaking into the bank at night. If there's already a category of bak robbers, why do we need a list of them? The rational is simple: This is an indiscriminate list of crimes (many not even banks) and there's no real criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a lot of non-robberies or non-bank robberies. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria for nearly every list of people, on top of whatever specific facts about those people that we're focusing on, is "has or merits an article". This is routinely enforced by editing and demonstrated consensus, and it's merely a matter of naming convention that we don't include the self-referential word "notable" in the list. In this way such lists should have the exact same inclusion criteria as their complementary categories. Hope this helps clear up the confusion. postdlf (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't clear up anything. First, you have a list of people and events. Why are we running a list with 2 entirely different things? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my first comment. Do you or do you not want this just to list bank robbers? Or do you instead want it split into two separate lists? Note we also have plenty of entries in Category:Bank robberies, so separate lists would seem appropriate, and then whether the robbery list includes incidents that do not merit individual articles or is limited only to articles would be a matter for editors to decide. If your answer is "neither", that's what I have not seen a clear rationale for, because your comments seem focused on the current state of the hybrid list rather than explaining why there's nothing that could be done to improve/develop the content, and otherwise contrary to WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that we make it a list of bank robberies and we're including ones that don't merit individual entries. It will probably become a never ending dumping ground of local robberies that turns this into a newspaper. How would a list of bank robbers help? Again, a list of every non-notable person who robbed a bank. I don't oppose a category, but I see no merit in this list at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to both problems would be to limit them to entries that have articles only and remove any that are nonnotable. This is standard practice. The annotations and sources already in the article also illustrate the merit of the list above and beyond the categories, and show the potential for other entries in this list. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does that accomplish anything that a category doesn't? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lists like List of Indian rail accidents, Islamophobic incidents, which includes lots of incidents that fail actual criteria of lists. This list either seems as good or just better. Capitals00 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and listing of the items cannot be really questioned. I would support merge only if there is an article concerning the bank robberies but that is not proposed yet. Capitals00 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of items can't be questioned? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whether split or maintained as a joint list, as indexes of articles per WP:LISTPURP and complements to the categories per WP:NOTDUP. The nominator's complaints seem to come down only to fixable issues addressed through normal editing, and AFD is not cleanup. See WP:ATD and WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Any entries that don't actually qualify should be removed, just as they would be from the category. And whether this includes verifiable bank robberies that don't merit standalone articles is also an issue for editing and consensus to determine, and routine to enforce if limited only to notable entries. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to work on fixing it? Or just be one of those that votes to keep and expects others to do it? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do have a Category:Bank robberies, but this list is a lot more complete. No, we can not convert the list into the category because not all notable robberies currently have pages about them. Having such list helps to develop new content. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of entries that weren't bank robberies or bank robbers that got removed, I'd say it's more a dumping ground. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you are telling this after removing a lot of content clearly described in sources as "robberies" [4]? This is hardly an argument in favor of deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it after actually reading the source, reading what the wikipedia article linked in the lead calls a robbery and applying it. If you read the article, you'll see it was a cyber-attack in the first one, not a robbery. Most of the sources don't stupidly use the word "robbery", a violent crime, to describe a computer crime. Just because you glanced at a title and made assumptions doesn't make my actions wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. The amount of notable bank robberies/robbers is not unmanageable for a list. Deletion is not cleanup - nor is it the place to address the finer points of common English in relation to legal English in regards to robbery, theft, and burglary (whether the legal or common English are grounds for inclusion - should be noted in the list's inclusion criteria).Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you what has not been answered yet: What does this list accomplish that a category does not? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list allows to group/sort according to a coherent theme as well as add brief text (e.g. a line) next to each item. This allows browsing the whole thing in a more friendly manner than a category. I recently supported removal of a WWI connected persoon list as the scope was so wide it would be an unmanageable amount of entries - this is not the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as previously pointed out, qualifies under NLIST Thalium (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Bank robbers and Category:Bank robberies. Also keep per WP:HEY, as the article was significantly cleaned up after the nomination for deletion occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest R. House[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he's good for PROF based on citation counts (numerous publications cited >100 times). EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:PROF#C1 for heavily cited works (including 1000 in Google Scholar for his book "Evaluating with validity") and plausibly #C2 for the lifetime achievement award. It's also not hard to find multiple published reviews for his books, so he passes WP:AUTHOR as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. The "keep" people make good points, but he doesn't appear to be covered in multiple published reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the definition of Notability and the requirement for a subject to have a stand-alone article. I know "unsure" isn't the best answer, but it's what I got. If we're going to adhere to Wikipedia's basic Notability standard, then at the very least the article should remain up with a Notability maintenance template at the top. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing the definition of notability according to one particular notability guideline, WP:GNG. For academics, we have a different guideline, WP:PROF, that uses different standards and is independent of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable - my mistake. If he meets the WP:PROF criteria, I would say keep. Thanks for pointing this out! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other criteria stand in addition to GNG, so we do not over include some subjects, they do not trump it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- JPL, you have been told over and over that WP:PROF is independent of WP:GNG. Why do you persist in applying the wrong criteria instead of working to change the guidelines to be more like the way you keep pretending inaccurately that they are? In any case, the in-depth published reviews of his books are also enough for GNG (it's a low bar, for book-publishing academics). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EricEnfermero and David Eppstein. It is list-heavy and does need prosification, but as the saying goes, AfD is not cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objections to keeping it if the person is notable. My initial reading of the article was that it did not make any sort of claim of notability. If WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 is met (and this criterion could be made clearer to help non-specialist readers like myself), the article should summarize the person's influence and contributions. That is cleanup, not AfD, as noted, however. As a start, maybe one of the commenters here could link to the professor's citations and reviews in a section on the talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though the subject doesn't have a Google Scholar profile, I posted the URL to a GS search of the subject's name to the article talk page a few days ago (then forgot to come back here and let anyone know). EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cut out a lot of the more egregiously cv-like material and added reviews of his books. But the article could still use more work, so I didn't remove the {{Like resume}} tag. (However, AfD is not for cleanup.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR. Wrote multiple books that are widely held:
- Evaluating with validity by Ernest R House -- 700 libraries
- Schools for sale : why free market policies won't improve America's schools, and what will by Ernest R House -- 633 libraries worldwide
- Jesse Jackson & the politics of charisma : the rise and fall of the PUSH/Excel program by Ernest R House -- 593 libraries. Etc.

Reviews are certain to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Fox (actor)[edit]

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

~~Actor in a successful programme, but doesn't have the coverage for WP:GNG and his one significant role isn't enough for WP:NACTOR. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actor with a major role in a long-running prime time soap. Plenty of coverage exists as a Google search shows. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed. Actor in a major, long-running role in a major soap. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I've obviously been too harsh and too blinded by its original state, sorry. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mates condoms[edit]

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

De-Prodded. Sourced to company website. BEFORE does show some coverage (mainly for ad campaigns around their launch in the 80s-90s), but not nearly enough for WP:CORPDEPTH Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing as while the company is quite clearly not notable, the brand seems to be notable per multiple opinions here. Will refocus article on the brand and not the company.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known brand, the refs don't add up to much because ...its not a very sexy topic (sorry couldn't resist that)...because the article is a week old, refs [5] [6] plenty more on google. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. These were kind of a big deal at the time, becoming the "Hoover" of condoms in the U.K. At the time when the AIDS crisis was hitting, the article should reflect that. Sounds like BEFORE is already turning up sources that can be used to support that? Artw (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For instance: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/30-years-remembering-day-uk-aired-its-first-tv-ad-campaign-condoms-1646823 Artw (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The launch ad campaign is of some note. This does make the former company (was acquired and currently part of Ansell) or the brand notable. Coverage mainly seems to be limited to the launch campaign, some passing condom mentions, and less than routine corporate news.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just intimated the brand is notable in which case you should withdraw this nomination! Or clarify Szzuk (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be about the nonexistent (which I realized during the AfD, was purchased by Ansell) company which definitely fails CORPDEPTH. Does the UK specific brand of Ansell meet WP:PRODUCT due to coverage of their launch ad campaign in the 80s? I am not sure this it does, and the current article (still about the supposed company) dies not convince me.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC) The firm itself (a Richard Branson Virgin off-shoot) - was purchased by Ansell in 1988 [7] (for 1 million pounds). Ansell recently sold its entire Condom division (a large number of brands, including Mates) in 2017 - See here [8] (BBC does mention Mates) and here [9] (the Sydney Morning Herald and most non-UK press - does not).Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So solid GNG pass. Artw (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage above is not close enough for GNG for the Mates brand. The company itself is a clear fail. Basing GNG for the WP:PRODUCT based on its launch campaign in 1987? That's pretty shaky.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exceptionally well-known brand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 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) 00:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musumet[edit]

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

No indication how notable this series is. It might have had an English licensing, but would that be good enough to retain? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not an expert in anime at all, so I’ll have to do a bit more research when I get home, but I’ll say preliminarily that as I understand it, A1 Pictures is a fairly well-respected animation studio in Japan – to the extent that anything they make, it’ll probably be broadcast on a major network and become notable through significant coverage in reliable sources. Try searching in Japanese sources as well as English ones. (Try copy and pasting the Japanese title into Google). I’m currently on mobile, so it’s difficult for me to do it myself. Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, something is off here. The article stated that this show was produced by A1 Pictures, but A1 Pictures wasn't founded until 2005, whereas this show aired in 2004. I've therefore removed the reference to A1. Mz7 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want to work on it as a draft? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'd rather see it kept in the mainspace. Here, the subject is a television series that aired on a major Japanese television network. These are typically notable enough for Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why do you keep posing AfDs as a question? If you're not sure if it should be deleted then don't nominate it. This was a typical television series that aired on several major Japanese television networks. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be created when it's not been shown how notable it is? Not every television series produced needs an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that articles should have more than that to establish notability otherwise you have something like "Musumet is a Japanese anime series that aired on several major Japanese networks". Well yeah it aired, but where is the impact if that was noteworthy? The lack of WP:RS here in Japanese sources is troubling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is already established by virtue of it being a TV series that aired on several major networks. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my comment below, although the anime is obscure and appears to have been forgotten, considering it aired 13 years ago (when online anime media was in its infancy), it's possible that there was more coverage about it offline, or any online coverage that did exist is already gone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article possibly be redirected to TNK (company) then until more information can be found? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no evidence that this has been licensed in the United States, a search for in depth or numerous WP:RS came up empty. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to have been licensed in the United States. This isn't the American Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is woefully incomplete, and if the article is to be kept, it needs to be expanded to at least be an overview of the series. However, the series did air on multiple Japanese markets, which I supposed should be enough to establish notability. In addition, due to the series' age, it's possible that coverage that may exist may either be dead or offline, so we might have to be more lenient about notability standards, in this case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:44, 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. – Joe (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Platform Productions[edit]

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

Failed to find anything at least for company based in Karachi. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 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. – Joe (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 1992[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure listcruft. The raw data and a much more elegant graph are available here on the web. What little discussion there is is already covered at United Kingdom general election, 1992#Polling. (After deletion it would be a good idea to re-instate as a redirect and protect it from re-creation as an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not listcruft. this article should be around mainly due to it's significance within the election. For a compromise the United Kingdom general election, 1992#Polling text could be moved to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valuable in contributing additional information and context to the 1992 election. Indeed, if anything, there's a stronger case to be made for keeping this article than its sister pages from other election cycles as the 1992 election result was an unexpected repudiation of the polls, and led directly to the development of the 'Shy Tory' hypothesis in British psephology. Eloquai (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic isn't encyclopedic. I didn't check the refs because...the topic isn't encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the topic not encyclopedic? almost all pages that are for current elections have separate pages for opinion polls as well as most previous elections. You are trying to delete information which is very important for a reader to gain a context of the election and by deleting this page would mean people would not understand the election as much as they could.JDuggan101 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't a repository of statistics, statistics by their very nature are only of interest to statisticians. A paragraph of prose explaining the statistics has been identified by the nom and is in the appropriate article. Your other articles exist argument is weak - most likely those articles need deleting too. Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However Wikipedia is here for information and even though this is data is also provides context for the public's opinion through out the time of 1987 to 1992. My other articles argument is not weak due to their being over at least 1000+ articles relating opinion polling.JDuggan101 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before making the argument that a topic isn't encyclopedic, and therefore doesn't merit inclusion, you may wish to read this: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC schetm (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read the full discussion before making out of date replies. I subsequently stated WP isn't a repository for statistics. Szzuk (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Opinion polling in and of itself passes the GNG. The topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and is therefore "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." schetm (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does policy state "Opinion polling in and of itself passes the GNG"? You say "The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". There are 4 references let us examine them;

1) Gives the results of the election and is an article analyzing the result - its focus is not polling.

2) Explains exit polls in general - not this election

3) Gives the raw statistics - and does not explain why this topic is notable

4) Gives the election results - its focus is not polling

None of these refs support the topic Opinion polling in the 1992 election. This is just WP:Synth. Szzuk (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the policy doesn't reference opinion polling as such. But, I assure you, the topic is indeed notable! I'll work to add the following sources in the coming days, but I present them here for your perusal:

1) A peer-reviewed article in The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society about the opinion polling in the 1992 election, seen here: Public Opinion Polls: The UK General Election, 1992

2) Another peer-reviewed article, this time in West European Politics, again specifically about the topic of the opinion polling in the 1992 election, found here: The 1992 British general election: Pollsters despair

3) A popular level news piece regarding the election polling, found here: Why bother with opinion polls?

4) A 100-page report by the Market Research Society, considered authoritative by the previous source I mentioned, found here: The Opinion Polls and the 1992 General Election

5) A piece from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on the election polling, found here: Getting Opinion Polls 'Right'

Feel free to assist me in adding these citations to the now clearly notable article. schetm (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon these refs I'm satisfied Opinion Polling for the 1992 election is notable enough for discussion on WP. However I still don't believe that quantity of statistics is encyclopedic and they should be deleted. Once deleted even with informed prose discussion there will be only few paragraphs of text at most. So should we keep a separate article with a few paragraphs of text or put that information in the general election page? I prefer the latter because it will be easier for users to access - so I won't be redacting my delete vote. I accept the decision is no longer so clear cut so I will now leave the discussion to other editors. Szzuk (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Makes no sense to delete this article alone when we have opinion polling articles for all elections since 1987 (see {{Opinion polling for United Kingdom elections}}). We have opinion polling lists for almost all modern elections (see Category:Opinion polling for elections) and this is slowly being pushed backwards with historic data with articles like this one. Number 5 7 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft per nom. Consider merging some content to United Kingdom general election, 1992. Lorstaking (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number57. Opinion polling in elections is a valid encyclopedic topic, easily supported by RS, and in cases where a spinout article is merited, is better spun out then merged into the main page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is only 28k bytes where as main article is also only 72k. Can you describe if there are issues with deleting and merging? Lorstaking (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having nearly 1/3 of article content be polls is too much. And in this case, the long list of poll numbers would unduly add to the physical length of the page. As for deleting and merging, that would be a violation of Wikipedia's license (see: Wikipedia:Merge and delete). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, these sort of articles exist for all other years and other elections. So they'd need to be deleted in a set. I find these articles to be quite useful, though this one could be better done. It is sourced and polling for the UK is a valid topic, talked about in a set by sources - so passes WP:LISTN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not entirely convinced of the utility of maintaining articles about rolling variations in public opinion polling at all — noteworthy shifts in public opinion should be contextualized in prose in the election article rather than simply being depicted by a contextless pile of numbers on a standalone page — there are too many similar articles for other elections in other years and other countries to single this one out as uniquely inappropriate. In a more comprehensive discussion about whether we should get rid of such articles entirely, I'd almost certainly support the delete option — but as a one-off case, uniquely applicable to this one and not all of the others, no. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand the prose, if possible. I'd be fine with a merge into the main election article, but there's so much notable data there that this probably deserves to exist on its own. South Nashua (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for its academic importance and work of Wikipedia as repository of Knowledge. This article is sourced and verifiable and is surely serving as reference material in academic works relating to UK politics. Also I don't see any benefit of deleting it nor harm in keeping it. So keep. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:57, 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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-aided inspection[edit]

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

Poor quality article with multiple issues. Shaded0 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman Automobile and Works[edit]

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

Spent ten minutes searching the coverage. There are some name checks in the directories. Because we need WP:CORPDEPTH for companies so this company fails to receive significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,,, We're in big trouble if this is the best someone can do on an article. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:37, 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 redirect to Inverness cape. As there is already a clear target that already covers the subject (it appears it's simply a shuffling-of-words in the "coat" article vis-a-vis the "cape" one's description of the coat morphing into the cape), I'm going ahead and redirecting this per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness coat[edit]

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

Not a single cite, not a single illustration, and text that could just as easily describe the Inverness cape. Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inverness cape, which already covers it and could easily have a heading added. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge information per Andy Dingley's suggestion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:13, 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. There is overwhelming consensus this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Leeds car crash[edit]

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

This is not noteworthy in any sense. Car crashes happen all the time, that a handful of individuals were tragically killed does not make this of any encyclopedic value whatsoever. See WP:NOTNEWS. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the issues surrounding the crash, particularly the fact the car was stolen and driven by two young boys who were not even of legal driving age at the time of the crash, and the subsequent high death toll for a single-vehicle accident, and therefore the court case which will now ensue, and also the tragic nature of the victims, I feel is notable enough to warrant an article. Car crashes happen all the time but sometimes there are incidents notable enough for inclusion; the fact that they occur all the time in itself is not really a valid reason for deleting this article. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where it was said that two young boys were driving the car. Fact that they were arrested does not imply anything! I think, later, one was released as unrelated to incident. MightyWarrior (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were arrested for causing death by dangerous driving. That clearly implies they were driving. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- and also the tragic nature of the victims - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who says it is a memorial? Maybe if that were the sole purpose of this article, but it isn't. It's just a true fact, and that's what Wikipedia is about? Buttons0603 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that was the standard, then every garage band that burned a CD on their Intel Inside would be covered. While there's no such thing as "too inclusive", there's also a Mendoza Line where something that happens, no matter how tragic, isn't worthy of inclusion, and even though I set that line (sometimes radically) lower than some of our more prominent deletionists, this still falls below it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Circumstances aside the case, what determines notability is coverage. This was within a routine news cycle which is already falling out of view. Tragedy and deaths are "good" for the news but that does not always translate to the encyclopedia. We aren't here to play wannabe journalists; see WP:RECENTISM for more. If a supposed court case takes place and if substantial coverage dictates it is significant, then create an article, not this news report. And until I get this damn thing to work, no one can determine the lasting impact of the incident, so really the article creator is at fault for pushing this too soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Headline news briefly but not notable in longer term, so not suitable for encyclopaedic article MightyWarrior (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the inquest(s) lead to some significant change in legislation or something similar, that might be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article: at this point in time, though, this fails WP:NOTNEWS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOTNEWS. How terribly sad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Störm (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic, but not meeting the notability standards, either in policy or consensus. Road crashes happen, and we don't write an article on each one. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Someone crashed a car and a few people died. This isn't notable enough event. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News item like these usually received high coverage by news sources when and after they happened. Whether the news continues after certain long period (like ensuing litigation) that's what will determine whether it has social impact to merit an article. Remember not everything verifiable is included in Wikipedia. The event is verifiable but not encyclopedic material, WikiNews is in dire need of such articles –Ammarpad (talk) 10:10, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jovita Moore[edit]

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

I don't think the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO . I can't locate any sources about her, and one unsubstantiated Regional Emmy claim that I can't find any independent sources about is not enough for presumed notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG ,subject is a TV presenter but there are thousands of TV presenter not all of them are notable.Not clear as to how the particular subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:09, 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. Notable topic, the consensus is keep. Alex Shih (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fardykambos[edit]

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

Unable to find sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as a spurious nomination. I don't see a claim that the battle is non-historical. "All sources are Greek" is not an argument, since the Greek resistance is a topic that is rather underrepresented in Anglophone sources, unless the British were somehow involved. "ludicrous casualties" may be a valid suspicion that something is wrong, and we all know the phenomenon of inflated casualty counts in battles, but that does not constitute a reason for deletion. The article should be flagged for better sources or fixed, but deletion is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Constantine ✍ 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ searching Fardykambos + 1943 got only a single sentence in a single book: Der griechische Dämon: Widerstand und Bürgerkrieg im besetzten Griechenland 1941-1944 by Kaspar Dreidoppel, Verlag (2009). searching Fardykambos + 1943 brings up only the same book plus one hit, which turned out to be an echo of our page Friedrich-Wilhelm Müller. Constantine, we would need more sources to support sufficient notability to keep this article. Feel free to ping me to revisit if anyone finds such.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is possible that there are alternative transliterations of Fardykambos. But many small partisan actions fail to garner sufficient coverage to support articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory:: as Smmurphy mentioned below, the battle is known under the names of different localities, including Siatista and Bougazi. Hits for the Greek name in GBooks: [10]; Stefanos Sarafis memoirs in English ("Battle of Bougazi near Siatista, Spring 1943. Entire Italian battalion of 18 officers and 700 men taken"); in a 1961 study by the Special Warfare Research Division, Special Operations Research Office, American University: "At the “Battle of Bougazi,” near Siatista, they claimed to have captured an entire battalion of 18 officers, 700 men, and all arms and equipment.”"; Hammond's Venture Into Greece: With the Guerrillas, 1943-1944 ("capturing an Italian battalion with its equipment"); Dominic Eudes' landmark study on the right-wing partisan leaders has a relatively complete description (pages 44-48); a study about wartime Macedonia by Koliopoulos (who discusses claims about who "won" the battle), clearly mentioning the "capture of the Italian battalion" at Siatista; I can probably find more. And I repeat that notability is not, for such matters, necessarily contingent upon coverage in English-language sources, given that the topic of the Greek Resistance is really not well covered at all in English bibliography (or for that matter generally in non-Greek sources). I suspect that similar things could be said about the Polish resistance, the Italian resistance, etc. as well. Constantine ✍ 11:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I found more results searching for Siatista and the date. I've added other spellings to the article. I wonder if this is the same as "Battle of Bougazi". I'm not sure, but was this the action where Stefanos Sarafis was captured? Sarafis was captured by the resistance on March 7, 1943 and soon after was persuaded to join them, becoming a leader. If this is the engagement where that happened, it is very notable. Outside of that, I've added a couple of sources to the article and greatly expanded a description of the events. Also, I am pinging @E.M.Gregory: in case he is interested in this transliteration. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to User:Smmurphy for finding those sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improved sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Κeep. Per User:Cplakidas (Constantine). ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sourced. Pointing out that the sources provided are Greek to some of us is not valid source criticism. See WP:NOENG. Paradoctor (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is sourced, though most of the sources are Greek language ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the sources are not English language, does not make them any less valid. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage. Pretty interesting, actually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 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 delete. – Joe (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bora[edit]

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

Unable to find sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. I searched under both names given on page, using date of battle on given on page as a keyword without finding anything resembling a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looking at the Italian version of the article, it appears that this was more commonly transliterated as "Operation Bura", and I found a document from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia website [11] which talks about it at some length. I think this could be considered a primary source, and sourcing does seem to be an issue here, but it's clear that the thing happened. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ran a couple of searches (scholar, books, general) using sp. "Bura" - found 2 or 3 sources, all primary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest renaming the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sources. Wouldn’t be surprised if this was somebody trying to start another Bicholim Conflict-esque hoax Dheltha (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) N.B. This !vote was entered directly to the daily log. I have moved it to the discussion page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 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) 05:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Lynch[edit]

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

Non - notable individual lacking significant significant support. References are mainly obits. reddogsix (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup, and the Senior_Bowl_(bridge) are the absolute highest competitions for bridge (like the Olympics for sports. You have to win a grueling and difficult trials to represent your country. You're seeded in the trials based on performance from national competitions from the previous few years. There are another set of bridge competitions called the World Mind Sports Games but those are far less prestigious than these three). Lynch has a gold medal at this level competition. She has also won several national titles. She was not only on these teams, but was the one who put the teams together and the team always bore her name. The Lynch team was always seeded somewhere from 1-4 in the premier national events for several years. The references that are obits are only the ones that provide color on her personal life. I can link more references to NYTimes, ACBL, and WBF articles detailing her bridge accomplishments, but I am following the template for other bridge player biographies on wikipedia where we simply link each win to the page about the event and let those pages do the references. Her bridge accomplishments alone should be enough for a page but on top of that she was the president and chairperson for a $130 million charitable organization, which is far more than most bridge players have done. There are several of us (Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge) who are trying to help fill out the bridge section and Lynch is very much an important person. Bonfirenight (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the Senior Bowl is won at the highest international level of competitions in contract bridge. An Olympian equivalent feat worthy of notability to which is added many national titles (which in the American Contract Bridge League jurisdiction includes Canada, the USA and Mexico entrants) Newwhist (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as a bridge player, and the article seems to have adequate citations. JH (talk page) 20:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely keep. Meets more than the minimum criteria for Bridge biographies. She is a world champion! I have created more Wikipedia bridge biography pages than anyone. None of the 100+ pages I have created has been deleted. This is an absolute keeper. The minimum criteria we have been using for Bridge biographies is placing in world championship or 5+ wins in national events. Carolyn has both. On either count, she qualifies. There should not be any questions about deleting this entry. For future reference, the following page contains a minimum list of 5+ time National Champions - they all should have a Wiki page. https://github.com/njhammond/generate_bridge_wikipedia_entries/blob/master/5winners.txt The page is not sorted. Carolyn is #46 on that list (as of today). Nicolas.hammond (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the appropriate etiquette, as am writing more than once. Want to address the OP's comment about 'references are mostly obits'. Go to http://db.worldbridge.org/Repository/peopleforscrappcm/person.asp?qryid=15080. This is Carolyn Lynch's World Bridge Federation Record. Click on "Playing Record Team Events". Anyone with a rank of "1" (or "2" or "3") in a "World Bridge Championships" is deserving of a Wikipedia page. Carolyn won the 2013 Senior Teams (aka D'Orsi Bowl). It's a World Championship. Questioning this achievement as 'non-notable' shows a serious lack of understanding about what is notable and what is not. It seems clear that the OP is not familiar with Bridge.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. Have just read guidelines again, and agree with Nicolas Hammond (see above).Shireenm (talk) 10:50, 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 merge to Haddon Township, New Jersey. Selective merge, then leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haddon Township Police Department (New Jersey)[edit]

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

There is nothing notable here in the article and nothing further could be found in a Google search to justify independent notability for the police department. I suggest deletion and a merge of any useful content to the parent article at Haddon Township, New Jersey Alansohn (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing notable about a small town police department.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: Are you suggesting deletion, or merge? See WP:MAD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect is appropriate here. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All police departments are notable. This one is having significant news coverage in the local press at the moment, making an article even more appropriate.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all police departments are notable. There are lots and lots of such organizations, some extremely small. Wikipedia is not news and we do not create articles due to passing coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 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 merge to Los Conquistadores. – Joe (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadows (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Random jobber tag team that is so unnotable, it isn't even mentioned in Moondog Rex's article. I'm sure a sentence or two would suffice, while Jose Luis' article probably gives more information than is necessary. Feedback 10:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Feedback 10:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object, team was a notable jobber tag-team and article should be kept, and I now added a source that states that Moondog Rex was Shadow I, does that now suffice? Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No reason for this to be deleted, as the information is fine; but should be merged with the topic for Los Conquistadores; a much more well known team, with the same people in it. A gimmick change doesn't really need a new article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT states is our guideline for this. I would normally state delete however, I am inclined to state merge per Lee Vilenski. - Galatz ^Talk 14:41, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El Portalito[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Casliber with the following rationale "emoved PROD - per book refs". Sadly, Casliber did not add said books to the article or to the talk, so I can only guess he meant Google Book hits. I've looked at those, but I don't see anything better then few mentions in passing, which is not sufficient for establishing notability. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - I can't read Spanish, but hey the President went there. This sot of material is not covered well and hard to find (compare with English pubs for instance). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? There's not even a hint of a suggestion of a breath of notability, let alone anything to back up the idea. --Calton | Talk 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, next to no coverage exists on the subject, and what does exist does is not exactly encyclopedic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if an English pub had been visited by a president, that alone wouldn't give it anything more than passing significance - so Cas Liber's rationale would fail WP:NOTTEMPORARY as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The place quite simply fails WP:ORGDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:09, 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 redirect to Live at Budokan (Dream Theater album). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumedley[edit]

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

Non notable as per WP:NSONGS. No references in the article at all, possibly WP:OR. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if sources can be found to counter suggestions of WP:OR, merge into Live at Budokan (Dream Theater album) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live at Budokan (Dream Theater album) – the article is entirely OR and fails WP:SONG so there's nothing important worth keeping, but it's a perfectly acceptable search term. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dream Theater. Vorbee (talk) 19:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TalentLMS[edit]

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

References seem to only be non-notable sources and blogs. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same, at best passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs improvement. Still there are hundrends of related references on News, Books & Scholars. The product is currently number one on Capterra's list of most afforable LMSs [12] and number four on the list of most user friendly LMSs [13]. It also has hundrends of end-user reviews on directories like Capterra, Getapp and G2Crowd.Pxtreme75 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Pxtreme75 is the author and primary contributor to this article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing quality sources - PR/business as usual level of coverage only. Seems to fail WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional chock-full of unnecessary details and promotional phrasing, fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform for marketing/promotion which appears to be the sole purpose of this article. Oh the references, most are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the others, elearningindustry.com is not intellectually independent or neutral as you can request a "quotation" on the website where they recommend LMS companies (among them TalentLMS) and they also feature TalentLMS as an advertiser, therefore fails WP:RS and possibly WP:ORGIND. The academia.edu link also fails to be intellectually independent as the paper's authors describe themselves as follows: In this paper we briefly present our efforts to design the first versión of the gamification engine that will enhance the Talent LMS platform. Since the designers cannot be intellectually independent, this reference fails WP:ORGIND. The other references focus on the product and not the company and fail WP:CORPDEPTH - perhaps there is a case for the product to have an article but there are not enough references to meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 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. Essentially, nobody except the nominator wants to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuo-Chen Chou[edit]

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

This article is pure advertorial and, to a high degree of certainty, it's an autobiography. Most of the content was written by two WP:SPAs, SanDiego2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Low-frequency internal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both usernames suggest they are the subject. At best it needs aggressive pruning of WP:PEACOCK, but actually I think it's a WP:TNT job. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. H index of 130 and ISI Highly Cited Researcher multiple times. The way I read it, the entry describes a lot of awards and honors, but it just doesn't come across as overly promotional except maybe in a couple of spots. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not address the absence of any credible reliable independent sources. Things like H-index indicate people who are likely to be notable, which in Wikipedia parlance means that they have been written about by reliable independent secondary soruces, but it's not a magic want that confers inherent notability in the absence of such coverage. This article is drawn entirely from primary sources. ISI "highly cited researcher" status is of disputable validity, as our article points out. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. It could use a good de-peacocking, but AfD is not cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you're misrepresenting WP:PROF, Guy. It's not that the high h-index confers inherent notability, it's that it implies that a very large number of scholarly papers (i.e. independent reliable sources) have covered Chou's work – in this case, according to Google, a whopping 51,849 of them. The current articles needs attention, to be sure, but with that level of coverage it's inconceivable that one couldn't write a satisfactory encyclopaedia article about Chou. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:TNT. I have no view on whether we should have an article, but this article, we should not have. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (M83 song)[edit]

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

Article is virtually identical to the version from the last deletion discussion, which resulted in a redirect. Only change is a chart position, however the chart quoted in the article only officially goes up to 150, and the source found says that this song charted at 154 (and does not name what chart this was from). Fails WP:GNG, the song is mentioned in passing by most sources either as part of the artists' or directors' greater body of work. PGWG (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd forgotten I'd voted on a previous AfD for this song. The chart position comes from Hung Medien's lescharts.com website [14] but I'm not entirely clear how these charts are generated. Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard3120: The problem is that I can't see on that website specifically what chart it is quoting, other than it being a French chart. I'm not at all familiar with the professional music industry in France, so I have no clue if there is only the one (SNEP) chart in France, or if there are multiple charts that it could be referring to. PGWG (talk) 15:08, 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 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PGWG: the lescharts.com website is part of the group of national chart archives supplied by the Hung Medien group, which have been deemed reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. The lescharts are essentially the SNEP charts – the lescharts website does credit SNEP and IFOP for supplying the data, and the SNEP charts actually do go up to 200, not 150. However, it has been noted that there are slight discrepancies between the SNEP charts and the lescharts positions, and it's not entirely clear why this is. But lescharts is effectively an archive of the official French chart. Richard3120 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Interesting. I had taken my official chart position numbers from our article on SNEP, which says that the official charts are the top 100 singles, 150 albums sold at full price, 40 compilations sold at full price, and 40 albums/compilations sold at mid- or budget price. I'm guessing that this article is possibly out of date, then, if the official chart actually goes up to 200 places. Nevertheless, even with one week on the national chart, I don't think the coverage is significant enough that the song meets the GNG. PGWG (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SevenHills Hospital[edit]

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

promotional, to the extent that removing promotion would leave only a directory entry. The references are essentially press releases and notices, and articles by people who work at the hospital. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete – most of the sources only mention the hospital in passing, and it fails notability standards for hospitals. Natureium (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mumbai branch is 1500 beds, making it larger than e.g. Addenbrooke's Hospital. If this was in a Western country it's inconceivable that it wouldn't be notable. Plenty of sources found in a brief English-language Google search e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has valid reliable references that meet WP:GNG and the subject itself as chain of many organizations. Simple search also reveals coverage from reliable sources not yet used and perhaps in non English sources more exists. Also I learnt that Hospitals receive near or similar inclusion leverage that schools enjoy due to my experience in CSD and XfD with village clinics, that don't have 1% coverage or significance of this article — Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've edited the article for grammar etc, and I'll try to get back to it later today to take a bash at the content and references. I think that there is enough there to warrant an article. Leschnei (talk) 16:12, 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 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- all the hallmarks of promotion. Two hospitals is a chain? Gimme a break. What hospital describes the investors? Patients do not confer notability. The list of departments is not notable. Weasel words at every discussion of accreditation. I don't want a hospital that is a member of a club like AHA. Imagine if you doctor told you had a disease like rotavirus? Written by SPA. TNT is my suggestion. Let a qualified editor write a new one. I volunteer. Or Leschnei, who needs to be bold Rhadow (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it! I just slogged my way through a bunch of articles (including those suggested by Pontificalibus), and I'm going to re-write the article deleting much of the present content. It will take me a little time - I forgot about Thanksgiving. If the decision is to delete, perhaps the article could be moved to draft space and I will continue to work on it. Leschnei (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've largely re-written the article using (mostly) newspaper articles. It's less promotional and, hopefully, its notability is more established. Any further trimming welcome. Leschnei (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clean up the reference errors in a bit. Leschnei (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Leschnei (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am still struggling with the characterization of this hospital holding company as a chain. By the WP definition, the two locations would share "central management, and usually have standardized business methods and practices." One campus is accredited by JCI, the other not. That doesn't sound like standardized business methods and practices to me.
I would not say the article is factual yet. At no time between 2010 and 20 November 2017 [15] has the Mumbai campus ever had more than 300 beds operational. That's a far cry from the "largest hospital in Asia with 1,500 beds." Rhadow (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. I have removed the words chain and like. It might be most accurate to say that it is 2 hospitals opened by Dr. Maganti, but I can't find any reliable sources for the first hospital - I don't know if Maganti opened that hospital or had assumed control at a later date.

I qualified the size claim in the header. The exact number of operational beds is hard to pin down. For example, in 2013, it appears that an additional 300 beds were added. So I simply added that in 2017, there are 300 beds. If you'd like it stated more forcefully, perhaps you could be bold and do it. Leschnei (talk) 13:34, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Blair[edit]

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

Actor and writer in a bunch of non-notable films, of which only two have had some useful run in film festivals and of which only one has a Wikipedia article. It's sourced to IMDb mainly. Recommend redirect to his most notable work Deadly Revisions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced all IMDB references for this page with other sites for reference and have added more sites for reference as well. (I was unaware IMDB was not an accepted source, so I apologize for that.). I cannot speak to what one might consider a "notable" project versus a "non-notable" project, but I do know Mr. Blair is a fairly well known name in the indie horror community and getting more prominent each year. Thank you for your consideration. ChesterPlate (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Chester[reply]

Delete minor roles especially in non-notable productions do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film/TV/Theater personality with a diverse career, meets WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Deadly Revisions which references show significant coverage of his career? The ones posted are all name drops. Garden Party Massacre is a maybe but could use more detail. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Outside of Deadly Revisions which references show significant coverage of his career? A: Aside from the two you mention, also Cold Lang Syne. Specifically in Cold Lang Syne, Daily Variety, November 29, 2010, REVIEW; Pg. 38, 394 words and in the article included in our entry. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 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 keep. (Nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares (restaurant)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "probably old enough for notability". I am afraid just being old is not enough, this needs to be discussed a significant by reliable sources - for example on Portuguese cuisine and its history, etc. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any, and that claim is self-published. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A legitimately famous restaurant. The Portuguese Wikipedia article has more details, sourced to a thorough 2011 article in Público [16]. And there's a lengthy 1987 article in The New York Times about the restaurant's history and renovation; it refers to the place as "a kind of national landmark". [17]. Clear pass of GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fully agree with Arxiloxos. Besides that, it was featured in the work of Eça de Queiroz, and it's been actually classified as a national landmark. Comte0 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom. [18] is sufficient to show notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 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) ^{Babymissfortune} 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso House[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "huge chain". Well, huge is subjective, size is not a criteria mentioned in any policy/guideline, and also this claim is unreferenced. Seems like WP:YELLOWPAGES spam to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very large chain. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Size is not sufficient, it is not mentioned in any policy/guideline on notability. And you also failed to note that this claim is self-published and can be marketing hoax.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Swedish Wikipedia article provides more details and several news sources, including this one from Dagens Industri reporting on the sale of the company to JAB Holding Company, the Liechtenstein-based holding company for the super-rich Reimann family, which also owns a number of other major coffee companies around the world. We can dispense with the "marketing hoax" concern. Searches reveal many sources in Swedish and other Scandanavian languages about this company, and I think the article can be improved by editors with some facility in those languages. At a minimum a merge into the JAB article could be considered, but deletion would not be appropriate.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's the local version of Starbucks, and an attention-generating one at that. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs expansion and better references for sure. But still notable chain and a known brand in Sweden.BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable chain, in the sense that it's ubiquitous in its home market and thus of interest to the general public, has sources and is clearly verifiable with more. /Julle (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Huge chain, clearly notable with significant coverage. In the intro I read that the article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Espresso House, however, is a company, not a person. It seems that the prodding, then nomination were both based in error. gidonb (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Especially with online translation getting ever better, no real excuse for not doing a little work before nominating such articles - WP:BEFORE applies here. Edwardx (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well known chain - any attempts at WP:BEFORE would have turned up sources to confirm that. Sources are not restricted to site:.se/.no/.dk, and proposing that the claim "largest Nordic coffee house chain" could be a marketing hoax is a misconception that easily could have been avoided with just a Gnews search finding a source such as "Largest Nordic Coffee Chain Espresso House Bought by JAB". I have added a few citation to sources, and the available sources show that the company easily meets WP:ORGCRIT. Sam Sailor 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As this nomination is rather bizarre, there are and can be responses only one way. Discussion can be closed as speedy and WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above notable chain.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:37, 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 to be draftified as per discussion below.. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full Genomes Corporation[edit]

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

Article created by its CEO. To give him credit, he seems to have contacted OTRS and was advised to add a connected contributor tag to the talk page. However, it seems to fail WP:ORG as either the sources fail WP:RS or do not discuss it in depth. I found a mention of it in a self-published book and here in an RS but only one sentence. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn with the understanding that it will be draftified and resubmitted as a draft. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either self-published, blogs, PR-rewrites or super obscure. WP:CORPSPAM and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I contacted wikipedia support and was advised to add the COI tag.Dnauser (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) However, the ISOGG source is not obscure. ISOGG is the primary reference for genetic genealogy. https://isogg.org/wiki/Full_Genomes_Corporation. That's a third party site. See lisitng for ISOGG here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_of_Genetic_Genealogy Dnauser (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the blogs in question are prominent blogs within the genetic genealogy community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ISOGG site is not obscure but it is a wiki, "is a website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser". I'm not sure if absolutely anyone is allowed to edit, but the history of the article on your company's history is here and was written mainly by an editor who describes themself as a student.[19] In any case it fails WP:RS, just as Wikipedia itself does.

Editing is only done by ISOGG staff. Editing cannot be done by the general public. Kennett, the primary editor of that wiki, is "Honorary Research Associate in the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London," see: http://ggi2013.blogspot.com/2014/10/debbie-kennett-dna-for-beginners.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another national news article: GenomeWeb: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:00GUwZ8Ox5wJ:https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing-technology/consumer-genomics-firms-hope-lower-costs-new-features-will-make-y-chromosome+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Jobling, first author of that paper (see: https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/people/jobling ), is a world-renowned expert in the area of Y chromosome phylogeny. He cites us and FTDNA. The article is behind a paywall. I have a copy that I can email you.Dnauser (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC). The Jobling and Chris Tyler Smith article reviews the scientific background of this particular area. It also addresses the technical reasons why this type of technology yields important findings on the Y chromosome.Dnauser (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, again, that the Genomeweb article (Petrone, Jun 26, 2015) mentions only two companies in the United States that do this advanced research on the Y chromosome. In Wikipedia, only FTDNA (Family Tree DNA) is mentioned. That article is not a press release by ourselves.Dnauser (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC). Likewise, in the case of the Nature article, our work on the Y chromosome is cited, as is FTDNA's. However, only FTDNA is mentioned in Wikipedia. Of course, they are a much larger company and much more prominent. Dnauser (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) There are a couple other papers that cite our work (journal articles). Overall, both companies, i.e. FTDNA and Full Genomes, offer next generation sequencing of the Y chromosome, and both are cited in national articles and scientific journals. If proof is number of citations in press, we're a small group, so we have a limited number of citations and references, in Genomeweb, Nature, a variety of genetics blogs, including Gene Expression, by a prominent genetics blogger. Dnauser (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the main editor at your ISOGG page is not Debbie Kennett but ChrisR, whoever she/she is. The GenomeWeb article doesn't really discuss it, it quotes someone from it. See WP:CORPDEPTH which excludes "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" as evidence of notability. The scientific background isn't relevant here, this is an article about the company itself, not science. Citations are not enough and aren't even mentioned. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that ChrisR is the main editor is false and inaccurate.Dnauser (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC) ChrisR is no longer active as an editor. Your information is not accurate.Dnauser (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are also ignoring that there were two Genomeweb articles, a major source, an article in Eurekalert, as well as the fact that ISOGG is a primary wiki for genetic genealogy and better sourced than wikipedia. Dnauser (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC). Blaine Bettinger, who used our services is a prominent blogger [see: https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/13-2/ ], cited in the NYT and other sources. He is quoted in that article as well.{GenomeWeb]Dnauser (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Let's recap: ISOGG is the primary organization of record for genetic genealogy. It references and lists articles on FTDNA, 23andme, Full Genomes Corporation, and Britains DNA, among others. Of that list of major companies, only FTDNA and Full Genomes offer full Y chromosome sequencing. ISOGG's articles are curated by a well-qualified team, of which Mr. Weller is unfamiliar. ChrisR happens to be published in this area, by the way. Debbie Kennett has written a number of books on the subject.Dnauser (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence we're seeing commentary based on familiarity with ISOGG, familiarity with the DNA technology or familiarity with the industry.Dnauser (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC). The question of notability is directly connected to the reasons why FGC was mentioned in GenomeWeb, Eureaka Alert, the Nature article I mentioned previously as well as in the ISOGG wiki. Those organizations have significant prominence in our industry and wouldn't have mentioned our work without acknowledgement of its significance or importance.[reply]

The first article on us in GenomeWeb wasn't a brief mention, and neither was the second. Both articles focused on FTDNA and FGC as the two main players in this area. Those aren't brief mentions. Dnauser (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reference from ISOGG: https://isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_SNP_testing_chart Dnauser (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that list, at the link above, there are six companies listed that provide DNA testing services. Of those six, only three are listed in wikipedia (FTDNA, 23andme, and Genographic Project). Of the three who are listed, two of them provide only entry level products (i.e. $99 tests). In wikipedia, there is a clear bias to larger organizations. Secondarily, let's look at the visibility of that page 77,000 + views. This is not a minor wiki, but a wiki of record for the genetic genealogy community.Dnauser (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC).Dnauser (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question of notability is directly connected to the reasons why FGC was mentioned in GenomeWeb, Eureaka Alert, the Nature article I mentioned previously as well as in the ISOGG wiki. Those organizations have significant prominence in our industry and wouldn't have mentioned our work without acknowledgement of its significance or importance.Dnauser (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC). We were also mentioned, albeit briefly, in this article in the New York Times: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dna-test/#the-competition The New York Times (Wirecutter is affiliated with the New York Times) focused on inexpensive, entry level genetic genealogy testing, which is why they made brief mention of us. Dnauser (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say that my statement that ChrisR is the main editor is false and inaccurate. ChrisR started the article and has edited it 57 times, Debbie Kennett 25 times. I don't know who has added more text. Brief mentions don't count towards notability by our criteria, whatever they mean elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Kennett is the main editor because I'm familiar with who curates the page. She's also the main editor of the other link, here: https://isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_SNP_testing_chart

draftify - User:Dnauser there ~might~ be a Wikipedia article here, but this is absolutely not a Wikipedia article. Will you please agree to moving this article to draft space and putting it through the WP:AFC process, where you can follow the guidance of independent reviewers to see if this can be put in shape to be "live"? This is what you should have done originally, per the WP:COI guideline. If you agree, I will be happy to do the move for you, and this AfD can be withdrawn. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog:

I can agree with that process. I was not familiar with the draftify process. I think what may be at issue here is familiarity with our niche industry. My opinion is that the ISOGG wiki references establish notability, in combination with the other references.Dnauser (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Great! Let me just double check -- User:Doug Weller you are fine with withdrawing the AfD and draftifying? You can do both the withdraw and move to draft if you want, or I will do the move and tag for AfC after you withdraw it. Whatever you want. Dnauser please also see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog: I am not familiar with the draftify process, so I'd ask that you proceed. Best.Dnauser (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I am waiting to hear back from Doug that he consents to this. He and I will take care of it. You will see it all. Please be patient. I am in the process of posting some stuff on your talk page (User talk:Dnauser) - we can work through some things there. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My recommendation would be that consideration and evaluation should also be based upon experience with the industry and in particular familiary with next generation sequencing technology and consumer genomics. It is a fast moving area. It is a specialized area, I understand. Whole genome sequencing and Y chromosome sequencing are specialized areas of discussion. Dnauser (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Sorry, but that's against procedure as there is already a delete !vote, User:Piotrus. If he withdraws that I can. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I missed that. User:Piotrus do you consent to the AfD being withdrawn and this being draftified? Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Yes, but I'd expect all participants here would be pinged when this re-enters mainspace, so we can consider if a new AfD is necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Toland[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the content may have BLP issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E: sources in gNews search confined to that recent run for office and campaign-related perjury.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Single event, not news, too soon. Perhaps this could be merged later when the outcome is known on the whole event about all involved, etc. into an article about the "Belcarra inquiry" two thirds of which this article is about, and hence providing the (insufficient) notability for this subject, but there is no such article. Also, notability is not inherited. Aoziwe (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON / WP:BLP1E. She's probably not far off from being notable, but I don't think she is at the moment by the coverage I see coupled with BLPCRIME concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:PERP, if a person was not already notable enough for an article for preexisting reasons, then we do not create an article on the basis of a criminal allegation which the subject has not yet been found guilty of. And even if she is found guilty in the end, it's still far from clear that she would be notable enough to escape WP:BLP1E. It's not our role to participate in the public tarring and feathering of accused but not convicted criminals who weren't already notable prior to the criminal charges. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This wiki article seems to have been created and written in bad faith to smear a single person, even before the results of the investigation surrounding her have concluded. SunChaser (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unacceptable attack article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Busby[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Un-elected candidate for public office who does not meet the primary notability criterion. Tdl1060 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough to me. Covered in Time Magazine, Politico, Washington Post, many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.239.106 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. Meets WP:GNG. His candidacy garnered a lot of relatively detailed coverage (WaPo, TIME, etc). And it's not a WP:BLP1E situation either, as there's coverage about him as a sculptor, cited in the article, predating his candidacy. Sandstein 07:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fox News article from October only had a trivial mention of Busby as a sculptor. He was not the subject of the article, and it does not come close to granting him the "significant coverage" necessary for him to meet the primary notability criterion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the "Southern Living" article and video is quite in-depth; together with the election-related coverage we do have enough substance for an article. Sandstein 08:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this Time magazine article covering both the sculptures and the politics pretty much seals the deal: he's notable on two fronts, with coverage in very high qaulity sources. .198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep it's not BLP1E, as he has the election campaign coverage, as well as the sculpture coverage. The article could be expanded. He's clearly very notable based on the many many sources. Did nominator do WP:BEFORE? 198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know nothing about Mr Busby, but any write-in candidate for the Alabama Senate election who has a chance of getting as many votes as the difference between the votes of the official party candidates is clearly of sufficient importance to merit a Wikipedia article. David Fremlin (Colchester, England)
- That's awfully WP:CRYSTALY. I haven't seen any polls that suggest that that might be the case.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At a minimum need to have this stub until post Alabama election. Clearly sufficient importance to merit a Wikipedia article. Discernable (USA) (unsigned entry by User:Discernable, who also left this link at end that screwed up other afds listed in deletion sorting categories.)

"Create articles about all the candidates and then delete the ones who didn't win after the election is over" is not how we do things on here. Absent a strong claim to preexisting notability for some other reason independent of their candidacy, a person has to win the election before they qualify to have an article created on here in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not, in and of itself, a notability criterion that gets a person into Wikipedia — a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL. Jones and Moore both had preexisting notability for their prior careers as a lawyer and a judge before becoming candidates in the Senate election, which is why they have articles, but there's no evidence being shown here that Busby did: he would not have passed WP:NARTIST on either the volume or the depth of pre-campaign art-sourcing shown here, because neither the number of sources nor the depth of what they actually say about him would have been enough. And a smattering of campaign-related coverage is not in and of itself enough to claim that he passes GNG for the campaign itself, either — every candidate in any election anywhere could always show a smattering of campaign-related coverage, so to deem his candidacy a special notability case per se we would require significantly more coverage than most other candidates could always also show. When it comes to politics, our role is not to provide "equal time" to all candidates in every election — we are not a free publicity venue for aspiring future notables, but an encyclopedia on which an article does not become appropriate until after the person has already cleared a notability standard. Our governing principle is what will people still be looking for ten years from now, not who happens to be temporarily newsy today. No prejudice against recreation after election day if by some unlikely stroke of luck he somehow wins the seat, but nothing here is enough to already deem him notable today. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he would pass either NARTIST or NPOL, in isolation. But taken together, the coverage for his art and for his candidacy - quite exceptional coverage for a fringe local candidate, including TV interviews, etc - comfortably passes WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Sandstein has this right. Although the pre-campaign coverage of Busby is modest, the national attention he has received vaults him over the WP:GNG bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too many editors are incapable of evaluating when insufficient notability in several fields combines to collectively constitute sufficient general notability, and that is what I see here. Taken in isolation, any one part of Lee Busby's biography may not justify an article, but in sum they absolutely do. Kiernanmc (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kiernanmc, this is a borderline soldier, artist, and politician. 3 almosts combine to notability, and there is some high profile coverage prior to the run.Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:GNG and there are not only un-elected officials on Wikipedia but even ones that are running in the future.--JAMillerKC (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced article that meets GNG. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability. While I sympathize with those who will do anything to stop the victory of a man as morally bankrupt as Roy Moore, WIkipedia's purpose is not to right wrongs, and we should not scrap our standards of inclusion or use Wikipedia to seek to right great wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN requires you to win an election. Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER or WP:ARTIST either. Consider moving the article into the Draft space pending the election outcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that he passes WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.154.101 (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG through he fails WP:POLITICIAN as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDMQ[edit]

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

Per wikipedia is not a dictionary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to establish WP:N of the term, and I am not seeing sources suggesting otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:DICTDEF - and it seems this word might not even meeting WP:GNG - the full non-acronym phrase does not garner many search hits - mainly FLIR related (e.g. [20]) - might be some other term for Milspeced COTS - FLIR ain't the first to do this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Seems to be a FLIR term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Queen[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF of a phrase, which just states that it exists and sources a few examples of it in use, the end. There's no context here to make it an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a dictionary definition, and I don't see how any could really be added: it's just a thing people call certain singers, not a thing that's been analyzed as a concept, so all it can ever be is a violation of the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The most comparable examples I can think of to this, King of Pop and Queen of Soul, do not exist as Wikipedia articles defining them as terms either; KoP is a dab page and QoS is just a straight redirect to Aretha. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has hardly any content and also has some bad grammar - it lists a plural number of singers and then says "has the title" but as this comes after a plural number of singers, it should be "have the title". Vorbee (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing encyclopedic about this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator says, it's just a few examples of journalistic use, with no encyclopedic definition or analysis of what makes these singers "melody queens". And it's not a title that is synonymous with any of those singers, in a way that "Queen of Soul" always refers to Aretha Franklin. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a phrase occasionally used in the media. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:22, 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) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only WP:ROUTINE match results. Has existed for one week, so also WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 03:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object, The trio has been refered to as Absolution on WWE programming and WWE are not going to change their minds now that Rose and Deville have been called up. The team is here to stay, and so should their article.Crawnax (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. We can't predict what will happen in the future. We have to work with what we have available now, and the stable has not received coverage from reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 03:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good example of WP:TOOSOON. There really isn’t much info the article can include as of now anyways because the team only existed for a week. No accomplishments and zero matches as a team. I don't see any significance. Sekyaw (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they break up next week will they be remembered for anything? Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to object that the team will not make an impact; but clearly too soon. If one were to get released/injured tomorrow; the page would be dead. If it were a singles wrestler, it wouldn't be too bad; as appearing on WWE TV should be enough to get enough information; but this isn't enough to warrant a page as a team; this information can be used between the three's personal entries. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, and the only sources included are for the individual's finishing moves. - Galatz ^Talk 14:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon. It's been a week. Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or better redirect to Paige (wrestler) as TOOSOON. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of right now, I feel like the trio is notable enough to keep the page. Zorbo678 (talk)

Delete – Right now they are only known for interfering in various Womens Division matches, other than that they have no achievements in WWE. They haven't really made their mark in WWE and creating this page at this time is not a good idea. There is still the future to look at and if they make a big mark/statement in WWE then I am all for re creating this page, but as of now it should be deleted. SSGeorgie (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON no questions asked. Nickag989^talk 18:54, 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) 15:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PKNA short stories[edit]

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

Non notable list of short stories based upon the comic book PKNA. No additional information, reads as WP:CATALOG material. Redirect to PKNA#Short stories. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Even the parent article has questionable notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete depends on a single source that is not easily verifiable. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:04, 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) 15:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PKNA issues[edit]

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

Non notable list of issues from the comic book PKNA. No indication of stand-alone notability, information or reception. Reads as WP:CATALOG material. Redirect to PKNA. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list has one source meaning that the information from only that one source makes up the list, you could essentially go to that source to find all the information. Wikipedia articles aren't even supposed to largely rely on one source but this one entirely relies on that one source. Along with this the article doesn't even meet WP:N.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Even the parent article has questionable notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Post[edit]

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many Pakistani dummy publications. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam per 13 Pakistani newspapers you've probably never heard of, as noted in the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOFTEC[edit]

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

We generally don't have articles on minor universities events. Fails WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Dbsseven (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable event. An event in college/versity is very hard to be notable up to encyclopedic standardandeven meet WP:GNG. Completely sourced with self-published sources thus lackings reliable and independent secondary sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Input processing instructions[edit]

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

Article whose sole source I just removed as it was a predatory open access journal. Has been tagged since forever for notability, sourcing and orphan status. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently from its inventor → predatory journal →Wikipedia. No evidence of use of this term in any scholarly work and or teaching methods. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and mundane terminology. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N and GNG. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information per WP:IINFO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Eyes Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Only coverage seems to be a fairly recent fundraising event. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV .Started only in 2016 not notable at this point and only coverage in Non RS sources is about fund raising.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we need more than few recent newspaper reports, all rewriting one another and essentially being a press release rewrite, before we can consider this company notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. −Domdeparis (talk) 07:29, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faizul Latif Chowdhury[edit]

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

This is a lengthy BLP but is very thin on references. Hardly any of the material is directly supported by an inline citation, and those most of the references that are listed address tangential points, not Chowdhury directly. I haven't been able to find any additional sources in English, and I can find nothing in the article that suggests a pass of one of the applicable SNGs. For example, the article is largely devoted to his scholarship, but going by GScholar, GBooks and WorldCat searches it does not appear to have made a significant impact per WP:PROF. The civil service positions mentioned in the article do not seem to be particularly notable.

My only reservation would be whether additional sources exist in Bangla, which I can't search for. A previous AfD in 2013 closed as delete but there wasn't much in the way of substantial discussion. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the last AfD: @Solomon7968, Xxanthippe, and Mark Arsten. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree He is the Director General of Bangladesh National Museum. I think this only thing is enough to proof his notability.--Masum-al-hasan (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masum-al-hasan: No position makes someone inherently notable. There needs to be coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree As mention by Masum he is the DG of Bangladesh National Museum and this is the highest post of the museum. He also a well known as a translator of Bengali poetry and a researcher on poet Jibanananda Das. As author he write already several books and few are research book about Jibanananda Das poetry. His research book about Jibanananda Das poetry published from leading publisher in Bangladesh. He is the one of lead researcher of Jibanananda Das poetry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasive (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's stop this bias against scholars who aren't part of the western system. This article is about someone who is a director of a national museum and as user Masum has said earlier, is well noted in Bangladesh circles.Egaoblai (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a complete mess, but there are multiple news hits to The Daily Star, which is one of the best Bangladesh-based news sources you can get. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets the general inclusion criteria, with independent coverage in reliable sources (specifically large regional newspapers). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've checked the news hits and they are all extremely shallow: they give single, trivial quotes from Chowdhury about something that happened at the museum, or mention that he spoke at an event there. Nothing more than a sentence and, tellingly, none of the material in the article is actually sourceable to them, apart from his name and the fact that he runs the museum.

I don't think it's bias to recognise that Chowdhury's position as DG of the Bangladesh National Museum has not translated into significant coverage in reliable sources. For comparison, we don't appear to have articles on the directors of the national museums of most western countries, either. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Øyvind Mæland[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources in the article are his own site, a bio on a commercial site, and own listing published by a society of composers. No independent sourcing, and searches turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "society of composers" casually referred to above is in fact Norways' Norwegian Composer Association, (similar to Britain's Royal Philharmonic Society), celebrating its centenary this year. That in itself is notable. To delete this composer we may as well delete every entry in the Norwegian contemporary classical composers category. Norway might not like that . Mark^Dask 20:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following you. Every entry in the category has to be judged on its own merit. Geschichte (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that if membership of Norway's foremost classical music fraternity does not count as Notable then what can? Almost all Norwegan contemporary composers belong to the association. Mæland is a member ergo notable, (plus 2 refs added). Mark^Dask 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I point out that if, as you say, "Almost all Norwegan contemporary composers belong to the association", that does not argue for notability. That is more like saying that almost every actor in the U.S. belongs to SAG, so therefore membership in SAG is evidence of notability. But it isn't. Not sure that membership in this Norwegian society is notable, either. Doesn't have a Wikipedia article, also not conducive to showing notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point - and the refs I've added? Mark^Dask01:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It appears that both of the refs you added are non-independent. They are ads for venues where he performed. What they show is he is a working musician, but not necessarily notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh well - I tried

Mark^Dask 01:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. They are good cites, not just towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I found this review in Morgenbladet: "With sci-fi ears: Øyvind Mæland raises over the conventions of contemporary music, lowly but definitely", in Norwegian.

The subject has a no.wiki article which is suggestive of notability. The article states that he also wrote an opera:

"In 2013, Mæland completed its almost two-hour opera Ad Undas-Solaris Corrected, which had its premiere at the Norwegian National Opera in October that year."

This seems to meet WP:CREATIVE. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus This is something more than your average working musician, (more refs added). Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 16:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Cambridge University Press reference - substantial critique by independent source. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 16:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the arguments of MarkDask. Lacypaperclip (talk) 01:52, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian blues societies[edit]

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

List of organizations which, with just one exception, don't actually have articles to link to, so instead the list is serving as an WP:ELNO-violating directory of their own website URLs. As always, Wikipedia is not a platform for creating searchlists of other websites; the entries in such a list must link either internally to other Wikipedia articles or nowhere at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory and such a list serves no encyclopedic value as an internal list of links. Clearly violates WP:EL. freshacconci (✉) 15:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 07:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkling Red Star (2007 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged since March 2012. The article was deprodded by Patar knight, but still has the notability tag and I believe that the source added is not sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is an animated adaption of a live action, which is in turn an adaptation of a book, we could probably just merge this content into the article for the first film if all else fails. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the source I added, which is a 16-page academic peer reviewed article from 2011 about htis review, it got coverage in AP [21] and it was shortlisted ofr a Hong Kong animation award. [22] Several pages of this paper also discuss it. [23] But like Tokyogirl said, even if this is insufficent to meet NFILM, it should still be merged with the original film. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a feature-length film by a famous director distributed countrywide by a major Chinese studio, easily meets WP:NFILM. in addition to the English sources mentioned by Patar knight, it has received significant coverage in Chinese media, see People's Daily, China.com, Sichuan Online, Nanfang, Sohu, and many others. -Zanhe (talk) 17:03, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Khushi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs rewriting but seems to be one of the most notable Indian DJs with national press sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 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 01:11, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media naturalness theory[edit]

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

This reads to me as WP:OR. Over 30 of the 40 or so refs are to a handful of papers by Kock, the person who coined the term, and where the others are available online, they do not reference the term (for example, one cites Kock but prior to the paper in which the term was coined, which would be WP:SYN).

The vast majority of the substantive content is drawn directly from Kock's original papers. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nearly a thousand citations on GS in total. More than 100 citations since early last year, apparently none of them by the author of the theory.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep could be cleaned-up however seems notable per Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not WP:OR. One of the previous refs. in the article seems to have been published by a journal that was a accused of predatory publishing, which may have triggered this AfD. That ref. has been already deleted. Most other refs. appear to be to legit journals, some very prestigious ones.--Senortypant (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something is OR if it was just made up on the spot. The sheer number of external sources here make it clear that was not the case. South Nashua (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article indeed cited one-work more than is should be, but the sheer number of resources available for expansion outweighs that. The further reading section has invaluable resource (from different sources). Dedication by editors who have access to these print source can transform this article in unexpected way, in the meantime {{cleanup}} and other appropriate tags can be used to call willing editors attention. But deleting this is not solution. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 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) ^{Babymissfortune} 07:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Suketu[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:17, 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 01:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the previous deletion nomination provided links to multiple WP:RS cites (e.g., Hindustan Times, Times of India, New Indian Express, etc.) demonstrating WP:GNG compliance. I see nothing that demonstrates he has somehow lost notability in the succeeding two years and the nomination fails to express any reason why this person is thought non-notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable musician. His remixes, in particular "Bin tere sanam" and "Woh Lamhe" were very popular and used to play on Indian music channels as well as clubs during the 2006-2010 years. He is still very popular and has actually released multiple albums.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:53, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations of Lübeck[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No coverage" is wrong, there are several articles on the Google News archive. I am not certain whether there is enough for GNG. In any case, a redirect (with perhaps a bit of a merge) to List of Model United Nations conferences is better than deleting this. —Kusma (t·c) 10:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "No coverage" is wrong. References (e.g to ^[1]) should be added though for it to comply with GNG. Sebastian tilman (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.ln-online.de/Lokales/Luebeck/Munol-Woche-ist-gestartet

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference above is not enough to show an event is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 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 redirect to Caroline Snedeker#Works. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 03:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theras and His Town[edit]

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

The book is mentioned on the page of the author. There is not enough material to give it an article on its own. Elektricity (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caroline Snedeker#Works. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 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 01:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caroline Snedeker#Works. It is still a historical novel and may gain notability someday. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slang terms for money[edit]

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

WP:NOT..a dictionary. This article, by its nature, is a needless catchall for OR, speculation, and neologisms. Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked for comments about the fact this article is on the list for deletion. I've got to ask why is it on the list? I found it useful, informative and even if many citations were missing, it still gave me the information I needed. A lot of work has apparently gone into this article; it's not offensive; it is not defamatory; it seems to me to be the sort of article that Wikipedia is famous for. It is not, IMHO, a "needless catchall" and doesn't contain that many neologisms as many of the terms being quoted go back decades. I hope Wikipedia doesn't become auto-censoring because a tiny minority disagrees with the purity of the article! User:Aresby —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in List of alternative names for currency. This is a reasonable topic for further investigation beyond just listing the terms - see The Guardian, Crossword roundup: dosh, dosh, loadsamoney, The Telegraph, Mapped: The UK's favourite slang words (both mentioning money-themed slang). bd2412 T 21:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it hard to believe this list is in AfD. First, this is not WP:OR, because Original research means the term has not been used by secondary independent source; while for this found in multiple reliable sources ABC, UK's Guardian and Daily Writing. These sources also cancel 'speculation' claim as The Guardian and ABC don't report unfounded 'speculation'. This is not dictionary entry because it's legitimate list article of notable concepts per WP:LISTPURP and not neologism, because neologism has received no coverage in independent sources while this list is sourced, and verifiable. Here are more sources besides the one above and those in the article here, here, here, this one and this. The article is certainly notable though I agree it need some cleanup, but deletion is not that cleanup and WP:BEFORE is very important step before AfDing. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with List of alternative names for currency. The two articles are on basically the same topic; while both need improvement the one listed here is better. There should be more than enough non-DICTDEF content to have an article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Romero[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7 thinking this article had promise, but after looking around for sources, I couldn't find anything other than a few mentions on gallery websites, and one art award. Doesn't seem to be a notable artist. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as failing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really funny, Don.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs do not establish notability, and search turns up little more.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes CREATIVE and GNG. Covered in several reliable sources with reviews of her work. Also, biographical information. @Arthistorian1977 and Johnpacklambert: to take another look as I've added sources I found behind paywalls. Maybe that will change your mind. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After looking for sources added by Megalibrarygirl, I reconsider and it's a Keep now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I find the citations very poor.

Photographer Cara Romero: Creating Conversations is an interview
Bioneers is an affiliated source
"Through an Indigenous Lens" I cannot access
"Indigenous Artists Find" reads like a rehashed press release from rainmaker gallery
"Cara Romero - Rainmaker Gallery" is from an affiliated source, rainmaker gallery
"Celebrating the" only makes a brief mention
"New Show Pushes Artists to 'Break Their Boxes'" which BTW is easily accessible via https://www.abqjournal.com/1049732/new-show-pushes-artists-to-break-their-boxes.html, and does no need a paywalled link, make only brief mention of Romero.
The same is true for "Twelve Native Artists Honored for Work" which also does not need to be linked to a paywalled URL, since it is at http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/apr/28/twelve-native-artists-honored-for-work/
Four Winds Gallery is an affiliated source, as is Robert Nichols Gallery.

In summary, I'd say there are some sources, but none presented so far provide an in-depth critical assessment of her work. If this passes WP:ARTIST, then only by the slimmest of margins. Mduvekot (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading Mduvekot's comment, I still stand by the view we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 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 merge to Knots Landing. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sumner[edit]

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

Non-notable secondary character on television soap opera. Non-trivial references are not forthcoming; provided references are from a self-published fan site. Wikipedia isn't a catalog, or a fan-site. Mikeblas (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ (see below; redid my !vote Lourdes 08:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)) to Knots Landing The character was well-known, although I'll accept that I have not been able to find sources that may justify topic notability. Lourdes 11:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 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 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Knots Landing or perhaps a characters article with other currently-standalone articles, per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sounds sensible, per Jclemens statement above. Lourdes 08:46, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Castillo (baseball)[edit]

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

I attempted to PROD this article, not noticing that it had been PROD'd in 2011 and kept on the basis of playing professionally in Mexico. Since 2011, WP:NBASE has been refined to remove the Mexican League from the leagues granting the presumption of notability. Player has not appeared in MLB, NPB, or KBO, and has not played in a major international tournament that would grant notability on that basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this article back in 2009 when he was briefly on the Dodgers 40 man roster. He never played in the majors and has been pretty much exclusively playing in Mexico since then. He did play in the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games but thats not a major international tournament. The notability guidelines changed after 2011 so i have no objection to deleting this article. Spanneraol (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played in a major league game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Link[edit]

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This ethnic Pakistani newspaper was launched in the US in 1994 for the Pakistani-American community. No way, it's a dummy newspaper as implied above and it's NOT published from Pakistan. I personally have been reading it in Michigan since its launch in 1994. It seems to have a substantial circulation within the intended ethnic community and I saw people reading it in Ohio, when I recently visited there. I'll try to find more Sources and try to improve it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1: Surely, you should add sources so we can verify and write without WP:OR. Thanks. Störm (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Storm It's done. I found news coverage for Pakistan Link (newspaper) from 2007 in a California newspaper Long Beach Press Telegram. Pakistan Link is based in Anaheim, California and is intended for Pakistani- American community as a community newspaper. It's distributed throughout the US and Canada, though. I also used 2 references from GoogleBooks websites and 1 reference from Greater Los Angeles Area local (GLAAM) website. Replaced all original research and company references. It's a short stub-article now so people can improve it...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1: Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 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. bd2412 T 04:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Akademiks[edit]

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

I don't see any particularly notable sources here. Being the host of some show on Complex doesn't grant you any status. Lack of any third-party independent reliable sources unfortunately. FiendYT ★ 15:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources are obviously announcements and notices. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's atleast notable as a Youtuber and as far as I can see he fits in notability there, the sources seem to define that too. Article needs to be updated though but there are clearly two third party independent reliable sources right there out of the three sources provided in the article.WolvesS (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage to establish notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 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 redirect to Pearl Gluck. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junior (2017 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 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 00:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pearl Gluck and move about a paragraph's worth of useful info from this page over there. I agree that this film doesn't meet notability requirements on its own, but the writer/director does appear to have some significant coverage, so her page should be safe. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Str8's suggestion above. After careful consideration I reached the same conclusion. Can add that, for example, Junior's awards are already in Pearl Gluck's article. gidonb (talk) 00:56, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Hengen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion was closed mentioning the article passed WP:NBADMINTON. Hengen does not however.
WP:NBADMINTON States:
1) Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships, - Has never competed in either event.
2) Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles competitions. - Has never
3) Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International).- Never
4) Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix. - From research it doesn't look he has competed in either, yet alone medal.
5) Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics. Yes he has won national titles, but Luxembourg has never competed in badminton at the Olympics.
Ergo, Hengen fails all five parts of WP:NBADMINTON and coupled with a lack of GNG this article is clearly not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per WP:BEFORE B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." In this case there are articles on the de and lb Wikipedia's, each of which is better developed than the article here. The lb page provides [24] and [25]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the accomplishment of 17 1st place finishes, as detailed tournament by tournament on the de Wikipedia, exceeds the intent of WP:NBADMINTON, where one win for a larger country satisfies the requirement. Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree fully to User:Unscintillating above. Florentyna (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the criteria for notability of badminton players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 has done a good job of showing he fails to meet the notability criteria for badminton players. The article has no sources that show WP:GNG is met. My own search didn't find any significant coverage and the article cited by Unscintillating is a few sentences saying he regained his Luxembourg title (routine sports reporting of results). His highest world ranking ever was 646 [26] and that's generally nowhere near high enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails to meet the relevant sports notability guideline and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage fails WP:GNG, also failed SNG Badminton. I find the rationale above that German notability guidelines should be above en-wiki's WP:NBADMINTON very weird and unconvincing –Ammarpad (talk) 18:52, 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) ^{Babymissfortune} 03:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Capriati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References nowhere near RS, include YouTube etc, tone is promotional, and his notability seems questionable at best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am editing the article so that it fits with the guidelines. thanks, richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardAWiki (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established by coverage such as these (and their contents): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 6 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) 07:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If the article is kept it needs to be significantly reduced in size. I'm not convinced that DJMag or MixMag coverage is sufficient for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 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 17:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 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.

[1] ttp://www.ln-online.de/Lokales/Luebeck/Munol-Woche-ist-gestartet

[1]