Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 September	24 September >

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) 19:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nova (Ahrix song)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NSONG, to do that, it would have to chart on any country's national music chart. The national music chart for the United States is the Billboard Hot 100. Ahrix never had a song peak on this chart. "Dance/Electronic Songs" is a component chart which would be acceptable in notability measurement if there are significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic, which there is not. I am including redirect Ahrix. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahrix (music producer). — Jeff G. ツ 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As discussed in the previous AFD, just getting a single into any Billboard chart doesn't on its own meet WP:NSONG, and there's no significant coverage of the song or the artist in WP:RS, just passing mentions that the song influenced Alan Walker (music producer). Mr. MacTidy (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It almost brings a tear to my eye when a nom fully understands notability guidelines. Fully agree with the premise; the Hot 100 is the national chart and, while "Dance/Electronic" certainly help measure notability, the lack of coverage makes me believe this song fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merely charting on the component chart of Billboard (even Billboard Hot 100) does not automatically grant notability. The song is not the subject of multiple reliable sources, current sources mainly discuss Walker's song "Faded" with mere mention of "Nova" as one of its inspiration, thus has no indication of significant coverage. Apparently fails WP:NSONG. Hayman30 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Howard (hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources on page are passing mentions, not independent (ie NCAA and NWHL) or are a blog. A search of google has not produced any sources that would indicate there is a pass of WP:GNG. Subsequently also fails to meet WP:HOCKEY.-DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NHOCKEY a Player of the Year of an NCAA Div I Conference is notable (Preeminent honor). The recently added detail of the specific conferences to be considered have omitted the CHA as a women's only conference. In fact the new notability guidelines for NCAA specify men's conferences:

Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American) in the men's play versions of the Atlantic Hockey, Big Ten Conference, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, National Collegiate Hockey Conference, Western Collegiate Hockey Association; (bold is my emphasis)

If the guidelines have been rewritten with the intent of gender exclusion, then perhaps the issue should be elevated. Moreover, the NWHL and the CWHL had been considered top tier professional leagues along with the women's portions of the major European leagues i.e. Swedish Elite.

I can assure you that Brittany Howard contributions to the game of ice hockey have been far more notable than someone who has played 1 NHL game. Bill McKenna (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that WP:NHOCKEY points out exactly what pre-eminent honours meet that requirement, being player of the year in a single conference does not do that, even for men's players. Top 10 All time career scorer or being on an All-American team is what is required. NHOCKEY as well as any of the sports guidelines are written so that those who meet them will 99% likely have had sources written about them to meet the WP:GNG. As much as you want the women's players to have as much written about them as the men's athelete, it simply doesn't happen. On wikipedia, notability comes from articles being written about a person. Not the general sense of oh this person is important or played in a premier league. She may well have done more for the game than a guy who played 1 game in the NHL, but that 1 game guy in the NHL almost definitely would have articles written about him when he was a junior, and in the minor leagues and possible even when in the NHL. That isn't the case for her. If you think she can meet the WP:GNG then by all means find sources that show that. At this point there are none on the article that do so and I could not find any on google. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Cody Wydo. Both he and Brittany Howard played for RMU. Both have had outstanding careers there. Neither have met the preeminently honored player test as specified (top scorer is not an honor, so a strictly defined preeminent honor criterion is poorly met here). Their press coverage has been roughly the same. The Pittsburgh press has been pretty well-disposed to both. My push back is that a conference player of the year and a HB finalist are both pretty notable, perhaps preeminent, regardless of guidelines. So, Cody Wydo and Brittany Howard should both be deleted or kept, and I would argue for keep. As for the gender issue raised by 18abruce, I agree that this might have been the case but for the specification of men's play leagues. Except for that matter, the red-herring argument of 18abruce is borne out by the Cody Wydo-Brittany Howard example, as long as both receive the same hearing. Good and important discussion. Thanks, Bill McKenna (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, looking at Cody Wydo he likely should be deleted based on the criteria, will have to check sources to make sure he doesn't meet GNG first however. That being said you should take a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because another article exists doesn't mean another one should too. It often just means the other hasn't been noticed yet. There are hundreds of articles we haven't cleaned off the wiki that need to be. They tend to get nominated as found. -DJSasso (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Wydo doesn't meet the standards, as indeed is the case for a number of male players, which is why hockey articles get sent up for deletion all the time; no doubt Bill McKenna was unaware that almost fifty articles on male players were prodded or AfDed in the last fortnight. (And, indeed, Wydo's article is now up at AfD; good catch, there!) That being said, the notion that NHOCKEY was set up with the intention of gender exclusion is deeply insulting, and I invite Mr. McKenna to retract that at once. What leagues are "considered top tier professional leagues" (and whom by, precisely?) isn't relevant to the purpose behind NHOCKEY and indeed every subordinate notability criteria on Wikipedia, which is to set forth the subjects likely to meet the GNG. If Mr. McKenna (or any other editor) would like to demonstrate that female players of the year in collegiate conferences can generally make the GNG on that accomplishment alone -- as opposed to, say, for being Olympians down the road -- then go for it. Ravenswing 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conference player of the year is not the level of honors that makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment I think Bill has a point. The notability guidelines may be skewed towards men's players. This is something that should be discussed. Based on the info in the article, it seems this player will likely play for Team Canada. So the likelihood is good of notability. Also, there seem to be over 8,000 hits for "Brittany Howard" and hockey when I just did a search. Several at first glance look like news organizations. But 8 thousand hits will take a bit to sift through. This afd maybe jumping the gun? Alaney2k (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely play for team Canada and has played for team Canada are two different things. Per WP:CRYSTAL we can't keep based on future possible notability. If she plays for Team Canada in the future the article is easily undeleted and I will be the first to do it. I didn't go through all 8000 obviously but I did sift through probably 20 pages worth of hits. I don't disagree that the notability guidelines are skewed towards men, but that is because the coverage is skewed towards men. We don't right great wrongs at wikipedia. We just follow where the sources go. Article creators are required to supply proof of meeting WP:GNG when it is questioned, so those here who think it should be kept have 7 days to find those sources if they exist. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is one of those things where a consensus is not needed, it's up to an admin? I realize the article can always be recreated. What about moving it to draft? Is that possible from here? Alaney2k (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully sure what you are asking. You mean to undelete? Yes admins can undelete if the circumstances of an article change. We undelete junior/minor league players who get deleted for being created too early all the time. Although often the players are already recreated before we need to do it so its usually just a history merge. Draft is usually used if an article just needs cleaning up, but not really when it doesn't meet notability, but that is up to the closer to decide. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant move to Draft: space so that it can be worked on there collaboratively. Instead of delete. Alaney2k (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I normally wouldn't object to moving to draft space, but to what end? Other than the GNG, the only avenue to notability here is making the Olympic team, and I don't much like the odds of a 22 year old player who's preferring a redshirt year to the pros and has never played internationally at any level making a strong Canadian Olympic squad. Ravenswing 12:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the gender issue here is a red herring; the achievements would not pass a male player anyway and has been discussed recently on several occasions. As for participation on the national team, crystal or not, that seems rather unlikely since she was never part of an U18 or senior camp while many other collegiate players have. That being said I think GNG is possible here, there are copious volumes of routine sources to sift through and I have seen others pass with seemingly less.18abruce (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant was that wp:nhockey doesn't have any criteria for women, but it does have men's criteria. Alaney2k (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as likely WP:TOOSOON. The Pittsburgh Magazine, despite being local coverage (as WP:GEOSCOPE has sometimes been applied to local people), seems to be the only good source that meets the GNG requirements with being both apparently reliable and significantly in depth about Howard. The others are WP:PRIMARY (RMU, USCHO, NCAA, and NWHL) WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL coverage (USCHO and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review/TribLive) and a blog (Pittsburgh Hockey Digest). The two Pittsburgh Tribune-Review articles, being a reliable source, are about the championship and she is only mentioned (one mentions she scored a goal and the other mentions she won the conference award and scored a goal, nothing of significant depth about Howard). The draft position means nothing in league that does not currently have player coverage for presumed notability per NHOCKEY (which does apply as that is her notability claim), so TOOSOON certainly applies. If an argument was to be made for including Women's College Hockey All-Americans to NHOCKEY, then it would likely still be limited to AHCA All-Americans, which she never was awarded. In my opinion, she needs at least one more non-local article of significant depth specifically about her to meet GNG. In a supplementary search, I was not seeing any better sources than what was already here (just more routine game and draft coverage and a few lists). Yosemiter (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have mentioned, the subject's resume would fail NHOCKEY and the GNG alike were she a man, so I'm a bit of a loss as to what being female has to do with notability here one way or another. Ravenswing 17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your girlfriend (if you have one). :-) Seriously though, the women's hockey as a sport is more like at the level men's men's was 100 yrs ago, and if you notice, top-ranked amateurs of that era are considered notable. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Major accomplishments at the collegiate level; perhaps rank-and-file players may not make the cut, but a nationally-ranked player should. The gender issue is relevant when you note that there are far fewer professional opportunities for women in hockey, so we do have a ranking that is top of the heap for players. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG Sources on page are blogs or passing mentions which fail to meet the requirements of GNG. Doing a search of google fails to lead to any other reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a hockey player who does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above; fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that she meets the GNG. Generally speaking, Canadian collegiate hockey confers no presumptive notability to any player at any level. Ravenswing 18:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Of Evans[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please help me understand why "Non-notable musician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support" is being referenced as grounds for deletion of this artist page.

One of the cited sources is from a well respected and highly visible music outlet: Afropunk.com. The artist has had media coverage and been written about there:

http://afropunk.com/2015/11/feature-the-gift-of-the-manchild-the-debut-ep-from-d-i-y-singersongwriter-comedian-williamofevans/

A second and third source cited are respected pop-culture website and podcast; Blackgirlnerds.com. , which has had many highly visible guests including Oprah Winfrey and Idris Elba. This artist has had media coverage and been written about at this website and was featured on this podcast:

https://blackgirlnerds.com/former-janitorcomedic-actor-makes-super-mario-music-video/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/black-girl-nerds/id1056793768?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo%3D4

A fourth source cited is the artist's page on Soundcloud.com; which is a large and highly visible music streaming site. The artist has amassed over 1 million song plays on this site and over 11 thousand followers:

https://soundcloud.com/williamofevans/player-2

With the above information, I believe this exempts this artist from the category of "Non-notable musician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support".

If there is a formatting issue with the cited sources, please help me to correct it, but I hardly see there is a need to delete the page all together.

Thank you. Cryer Townsend (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that the coverage among these cited sources are basically promotional announcements of a release rather than independent, objective third party coverage (even though the sites themselves certainly contain content that are objective third party.) Hence why they are considered trivial. Soundcloud is user submitted and is difficult to verify the veracity of view/listen counts because of click farms, etc. That's not implying these numbers aren't legit, but rather explaining why it can't be considered a reliable source. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and no indication that passes WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is not even a single reliable source that proves any fact in this article. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stilt (company)[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on a minor tech startup; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR driven or otherwise does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as in "Stilt is revolutionizing the way individuals with limited or zero credit history get loans in the U.S. at lower rates than other lenders". The company has been accepted into Y Combinator in 2016, which strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this in reliable, independent sources. This means that the information does not meet our standard for verifiability, and thus should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally by a blocked sockpuppet and subsequently edited by another WP:SPA. The start-up batch coverage is not evidence of attained notability, nor are the associated Columbia alumni sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Increased coverage of the company in notable, independent, and highly reputable sources like Forbes, Y Combinator, and SEC meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. The company has also raised a significant Seed round of funding in the fintech space. rm2904 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. User that commented 'keep' above me has no other entries than the article in question and this comment. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 13:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ann Blaesing[edit]

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

This entire article is based on the idea that Ms. Blaesing was the illegitimate daughter of Warren Harding. Her life was completely ordinary; she had no ambition to be famous. She attempted nothing of note. The article is simply gossip and has a "look at what I know" feel to it. Browntable (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are many other articles re Presidental Children- not all of him were as notable as Jeb Bush.. for example V. Joe 14:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own at this time. @Browntable: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 23:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish the claim. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible reliable sources discuss Harding, Britton, and Blaesing are linked from the article. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP does not apply seeing as how she hasn't been a living person for quite some time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Owen McGibbon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR for insufficient roles and or awards. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very small presence. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no reliable sources. IMDb seeks to cover everyone, and so is no sign of being noted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Clade[edit]

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

Fails GNG, N (people) and OR. Sources do not meet RS requirements. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - I think WP:V is probably more at issue here because the article has not met that requirement, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows that he is notable and the basics are easily verifiable. The article should be improved rather than being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions and / or non-RS militaria / hobbyist literature, such as John Weal and Jerry Scutts.

No de.wiki article exists. Did not hold a significant command and topped out as Captain. Successful completion of missions (sorties flown, # of enemy aircraft shot down, etc) is not part of SOLDIER. A MilHist RfC on this topic has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017:

RfC on the notability of flying aces.

As an alternative to deletion, the article could be redirected to List of World War II aces from Germany (the article had been restored from a redirect; I guess that's why it ended up in the NPP queue). However, deletion would be a preferred action, as the article history is not worth preserving. Sources listed there are WP:POV / WP:SPIP and none pass RS. The rest of the article is uncited.

A redirect of the name only could be done later at editorial discretion. Additionally, a redirect has already been attempted, so a deletion would be a cleaner outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG with ample sourcing available in even a cursory google-books check (surviving to a ripe age after the war, it also seems he talked quite a bit to various authors). Aces are generally notable, and meet SOLDIER(4) Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; - the exception is some German aces over the eastern front where kill counts were high and sourcing on the aces with "lower scores" is not as ample - in this case this a flyer over the western front - and sources are copious. The RFC perhaps closed with no-consensus on a five-kill threshold, but here we have 27. In addition, we also meet SOLDIER(5) Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents), as his actual role (as opposed to rank) of Gruppenkommandeur is equivalent to an air-group or US-wing. And finally, we should reiterate SOLDIER is an essay, which is trumped by GNG, which in this case is clearly met.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would those editors claiming he is Notable and in RS books please cite those RS in the article? Apparently, the article creator wasn't able to find all the books being claimed that establish WP:N. It would be greatly appreciated if Icewhiz and Cullen would be so kind as to cite the RS in the article, and I will be happy to withdraw this AfD if the RS pass WP:RS required for notability and WP:V. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in the article could be improved. However one is expected to do a WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD - and in this particular case - he's been written about at length in several books (several pages long in several different books (ranging as far as book such as this one - [1] on the killing of General Gott (frankly - I found it odd this was topic worth) - but several others out there). I will work on this later this week (if not taken up by someone else, I'm returning from travelling). The article was created back in 2007 - when standard were a bit lower. The article's text seem OK (though it could be greatly expanded) - just the referencing is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 15:37, September 23, 2017 (UTC)

Snarky doesn't help find RS to establish notability for this article, which by the way, was created in 2007. One would think that over the course of 8 years, it would be properly sourced to establish notability. Clade's self-published autobiography Glück gehabt doesn't meet the requirement, and neither does passing mention in books. In-depth articles published about him at non-notable websites don't meet the requirement, books written by those who served with/under him don't pass as independent of the subject, and neither do image captions or passing mention in books by non-notable authors that don't qualify as "historians". The information I've seen about Clade appears to be anectdotal (with discrepencies among sources) so it fails WP:V and WP:N; the latter of which states: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. I have not seen any indication that such sources exist. The article's creator states on his user page "If somebody deletes, reverts or disfigures my contributions, do not expect any discussion from my side." ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, there are quite a few RS who cover Clade at great length. His autobio is not needed (and I don't think it itself was covered in a manner that would meet AUTHOR). There really are quite a few sources. I will not comment on the article's original creator - and perhaps some or even many of his articles do not meet notability - however in this particular case this is a notable subject.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors typically cite a few RS they believe will support their position, so please feel free to do so - show us the RS and I'll withdraw this AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had me at my B-game - was on vacation abroad with limited access. @Atsme: Please look at the article now - I added several sources. Still a bit messy - but sources are there.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the point of meeting SOLDIER#5 (significant body of troops in battle). "III./JG 27" was a sub-unit of JG 27; the commander of the unit would be Geschwaderkommodore (Wing Commander). In any case, the appointment occurred in February 1945, and by that time sorties were severely limited due to lack of fuel and trained pilots. Luftwaffe had ceased to be an effective fighting force. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a 3-4 squadron force (30-40 aircraft) - which is at most one notch beneath the notability guideline (given the amorphous stricture of air groups and wings throughout the century). He definitely held a position well above his pay grade. However, even if we strike SOLDIER(5) - he still meets GNG. There is copious sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- This is about whether his WWII career was important enough for notability. He reached Gruppenkommandeur on an acting basis and scored the odd victory over Spitfires. I am doubtful if that is senior enough to merit automatic notability. We do not treat lieutenant-colonels as automatically notable, I think. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He survived and could report later on. That is maybe the most important thing here. As a German I can understand why he is not mentioned in the German wikipedia (he is completely unknown in Germany). But this is not the German wikipedia. --Metrancya (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just did a tiny bit of clean up, and it seems that the sources are of high enough quality that we can verify this. Although there is a bit of stuff that is not cited, this wouldn't be something that should be TNTd. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'm on the fence...and the reason is that the cited books are about notable pilots like Hans Marseille, Hugh James and William Gott, whereas Clade gets passing mention, some of which are simply his recollections of the battles and notable pilots. We could say "stack" satisfies GNG because the respective book authors thought him important enough to get his statement but that still teters on notable. I was hoping to withdraw this AfD but I think it would be best to let it run its course and allow consensus to decide. I know Icewhiz is putting a great deal of effort into this article and just want him to know that I truly do appreciate what he's done. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Gott was not a pilot, but the commanding general of the 8th army. He was killed by Clade (shot down by him, strafed by a junior pilot on the ground). Gott was then replaced by Monty. So yes, killing the opposinng commanding general of the theatre did indeed generate quite a bit of coverage for Clade (in many books covering Gott or his replacement), and is another point in regards to SOLDIER4. This had an effect on the African campaign as a whole, though quite possible Monty as a eplacement was "bad news" in hindsight for the nazis.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:V, most the major bits clealy pass and are sourced. Some more minor bits (e.g. posting as a flight instructor) are not. Since I believe these were probably sourced from somewhere in 2007 (most of the original article jived with the sources), and I see some evidence for some of them (e.g. mentions in German regarding civil aviation activities post war) did not remove them yet.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a "flying ace" is not grounds for notability, and we lack the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current state the article features a lot of references, but at a closer look these reference appear to be the result of some indiscriminate google search. I checked some of the references. Peter Caddick-Adams' biography Monty and Rommel, for example, is used to reference the sentence: Clade’s attack forced the transport to crash land. While Caddick-Adams notes that in 2005 Clade had told the pilot Jimmy James that "his squadron had been congratulated on the killing as soon as they landed," there is no mentioning that it was Clade's attack which forced the crash landing. According to Caddick-Adams it was "a flight of Messerschmitt 109s from JG27 which set the engines on fire". On a sidenote, Clade's story from 2005 is highly unlikely. How could the Germans have known of any killing before their squadron even had landed? Who did the reconnaissance? The notion that Clade indirectly made a potentially decisive impact on the future course of the African campaign is a badly sourced excersise in speculation clad in weasel words. Other than that the article features a lengthy paragraph about the damage JG 27 wrought to the Allied forces in January 1945. Clade's role in that is apparently limited to an "escort mission against Utrecht". As a reference, among others, the "book" The Cruel Slaughter of Adolf Hitler II by some karsten friedrich is used. That is actually a compilation of articles taken directly from Wikipedia and published on the self-publishing platform Lulu. Just look up Operation Bodenplatte and compare that to "friedrich's" chapter. Some general information has also been transposed via c&p from Operation Bodenplatte to Emil Clade, see the sentences following The attack caused considerable damage among the units based there and was a great success... The full bibliographical details of Manrho & Pütz 2004, p. 217, Weal 2003, p. 117 and Franks 2000, p. 134 have been lost on the way. Other than that there is an self published autobiography by Clade which has been used by some authors, but hardly for anything more than a quote, duly reported by Wikipedia. His credit of 26 or 27 kills is unremakable for a pilot of the Luftwaffe regardless of which front. It was not enough to earn him a Knight's Cross. His role in German civilian aviation after the war is limited to the fact that he taught flying and participated in the de:Deutschlandflug as more than hundred other aviators routineley did. --Assayer (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, we have kept articles on air aces. There are countless articles on men whose only notability is being an ace, usually with far fewer kills than Clade. No reason to single him out for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air aces are not by default presumed to be notable. This has recently been clarified via the RfC below:

RfC on the notability of flying aces.

There was no support to add aces to the WP:SOLDIER criteria. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC had mixed results, for a 5 kill cutoff. In practice we keep most aces if sourcing meets GNG, even barely.Icewhiz (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have a dog in this fight. In general, if the sources are considered WP:RS and the information provided on the person's life/activities is sufficient in notable detail, then he passes GNG. That is what needs to be determined. As a note, the RFC mentioned above was not conclusive for either side. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Pun[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any material from reliable sources to support this article. Thus, it fails our general notability guidelines. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably would've met CSD. A not notable blogger. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clear violation of WP:GNG -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash Clash 2 - Diamond Plate vs Oppression[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The first source does not go to an actual review and the remaining two are WP:PRIMARY. Even the band itself may not pass WP:NBAND. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N (music). The cited sources don't exist. The band Diamond Plate should also be deleted. Appears to be promo spam. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable sources for the topic. — Za wl 13:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saga of the Skolian Empire. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skolian Empire[edit]

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

This topic does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The book series itself is notable, but this fictional element of the series does not appear to be so. The article is written in an in-universe style, and the topic does not appear to have received significant sourced analysis in a real-world context to qualify an article. Sources mostly discuss the book series, but not the Skolian Empire itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saga of the Skolian Empire, trimming appropriately, per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jclements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JClemens._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saga of the Skolian Empire. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Nothing to merge from an unsourced article. — Za wl 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in-universe trivia. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy of St. Thomas of Chicago. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources currently in the article . A Guy into Books (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "No sources"? Meaning there are no inline citations in the current article? That may be, but that is not a reason for deletion. For one reason, it has two external links which could be the sources; it is not required that wikipedia articles have citations included in them, only that sources exist. wp:BEFORE should be performed before nomination of an article for deletion. And, browsing a bit (including "Philadelphia" in the search but omitting the quotes forcing exact match on the entire phrase) I find some mentions, e.g. in this book on Christian Pluralism mentioning community of 35 families in Philadelphia and another source about Keralites. A parish/church founded in 1983 could possibly be notable. It is sort of odd that it is part of a Chicago diocese. On the other hand, it doesn't seem necessary to split the topic out from the diocese article; it could be merged/redirected back perhaps. Or just kept, doing no harm. --do ncr am 19:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is some info at a "Parish / History" page of the church and also at the Home page of the church (scroll down to see its "About" section). --do ncr am 19:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more specific, I have updated the nomination, this church is far to new for the building to have any notability, it appears to be one of some unknown large number of similar buildings to house the "There are altogether 4,018,204 (4 million) Syro-Malabarians within the 31 Syro-Malabar Eparchies and approximately 585,900 members live as migrants outside any Syro-Malabar Eparchy. There are 58 Bishops, 8547 priests (3,556 diocesan and 4,991 religious), and 32,114 women religious and 1214 major seminarians." and "The Syro-Malabar Church runs 4860 educational, 262 ecclesiastical and 2614 health and charitable institutions." [[2]]. I still see no indication it meets WP:GNG and since I don't speak fluent catholic, I'm not going into detail to find where it could be merged to, I will infact leave that to someone who understands what a 'Eparchy' is. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the eparchy is effectively a diocese. By merge back to the diocese article, I was meaning to the eparchy, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy of St. Thomas of Chicago. Some summary info could be added in a sentence or two there, giving the address and the year of founding (1983?) and a bit more. None of the other items have any summary info, but that's okay, this could be the first one. Oddly, the eparchy article doesn't link to the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church page! Instead, it provides an external link to the syromalabarphila.org website. Merging to the eparchy article looks okay to me, or keeping and allowing it to be developed where it lies. Note, a church article is about both the congregation and its building(s); a church can be notable for its congregation/activity alone. There are some facts available from the church website, but importance is not established and we still don't have any other substantial sources about anything. --do ncr am 02:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the diocesan article. As a rather ordinary church, though of an unusual denomination, having a free-standing article on a local church congregation is not appropriate, absent of some particular notability. If kept, a place should be added to the article title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a major practical issue: this would probably be the most common name for any parish in that sui iuris Church, considering that they are the largest group of Saint Thomas Christians. A quick Google search seems to confirm my suspicions here. It would be very confusing for an Anglophone in India to type in the name of their local parish and be redirect to an eparchy in Chicago. If a merge is needed, we can just mention it in the diocesan article without much need to expand on the Philly specific content, so there wouldn't be a need to keep the history. Pinging @Doncram and Peterkingiron: since neither of you seem as familiar with Saint Thomas Christianity, I thought this might be relevant to both of your reasoning (no pressure to change, but I thought it relevant to bring up). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a Catholic parish, typically it is notable enough per WP:BOLD, if you only add some available sources. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I know enough of St Thomas Christians to be able to comment as I did. My objection was that it is unusual for a local congregation to be large enough to merit an article of its own. The normal outcome would be to merge a summary with something else, an article on the place where it is or its diocese, in this case eparchy. If others think the church significant enough for an article to be kept, it should be renamed to St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Philadelphia. Perhaps, in view of its distance from Chicago, that may be the better solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure if you were, which was why I pinged. Its definitely not notable enough for its own article in my mind: recentish creation, no historical building, etc. Looks to be a pretty standard Syro-Malabar parish. My concern here is that a redirect from this title to the eparchy would simply confuse readers. If it were moved to the redlink title you suggested, and then redirected, It could be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete What is said in the article is basic parish history stuff, and contra various claims, individual parishes are not presumed notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all churches are notable, and this fails my standards. If it's still around in 2083, then we can re-consider the issue at that time. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of David Guerrero[edit]

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

Another "disappearance" article that seems to fall into the WP:NOTNEWS trap. It is categorised as a crime but there is nothing to prove that it is anything other than one of many thousands of routine disappearances that happen every year. We are not a missing persons database and some of the sourcing is pretty poor. Sitush (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carlease Simms. There are loads more such articles but it will take a while to do a WP:BEFORE on all of them. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable disappearance worthy of inclusion, doesn't have to be a crime to make disappearance status. Also a lot of the sources are creditable as well, and there are YouTube videos on it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't verifiably a crime but someone (you?) included Category:Crime in Spain. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument we recommend to avoid because it is weak. Nothing suggests that this disappearance had a historical importance, nor does anything reach outside the regular news cycle. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Unlike the other two nominated (which were mainly sourced from a missing person online DB), there are sources for this one - including LASTING (e.g. his declared death in 2015). Note that sourcing here is complicated by an EU privacy removal in Google which may hinder BEFORE in some locations (or even search histories - seems that google will surmise you're in the EU if you search includes EU terms and your location is not ascertained by other means). Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I added some sources to the article (as it was at the time of nom - sourcing was not great to say the least) - seems this is famous in Spain. However someone with better Spanish than I and better Spanish media knowledge will probably do a better job. Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being verifiable does not guarantee notability. You are confusing the meaning of WP:LASTING which calls for historical significance. What is so important about declaring him dead in 2015, in respect to history? That is a common eventual occurrence in missing persons cases when the person stays...well, missing. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note my weak vote here. This is one of the most notable Spanish missing persons. He also received coverage in the interim between 1987 and his declared death in 2015, as well as after. Criteria for GNG is coverage by RS, and not failing NOT. The man who farts the loudest might meet GNG, as do many celebs... Despite having little historical significance. Their inclusion is useful if someone looks them up. Editor opinion has little to do with GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG was not my rationale. NOT is a specific exception to it. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not routine news covered by NOTNEWS. Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person disappears; police investigate but cannot uncover any legitimate leads; said person is later declared dead. Seems rather routine and the sourcing advocates to that. How are your missing persons cases typically covered?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing people is not usually (outside of periods like the Argentinian junta) routine news reporting. The reporting on this case, which began with him missing, initial leads in Spain subsequent investigation in Portugal, of family, of a Swiss suspect, multiple intervening reports through the years, listing him among the topN (10) disappeared, and subsequent death declaration 29 years later (inheritance), and more reporting after that is not routine even for the non routine missing person coverage. And frankly if I was able to find these sources with broken Spanish and without archive access to Spanish sources (important for this timeframe - at least the 80s), there is much more than this. Most missing person reports do not lead to news coverage - at most a local notice aroud the disappearance and nothing further. Notable missing persons (in this probably since he was child hoghly gifted painter) - generate in depth, ongoing, national level coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill disappearance of a person, nothing to make this case notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per nom and JPL.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:NOTNEWS is the strongest argument here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Aisling Symes[edit]

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

See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ANYBIO. As far as I can see, this was a death by accidental drowning. Yes, it generated a lot of news coverage - and some wild speculation re: possible abductors - for the brief period that the subject was missing but there isn't really anything noteworthy in the long term. Sitush (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:Notability (people) says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The article does not fail that test. Akld guy (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Notability (people) is not relevant here. The article is not about the person, it is about the event. Nor for that. Matter does ANYBIO as nom statement as it is not a biography.ClubOranje^T 09:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EVENTCRITERIA, specifically Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. I see "nothing further"; this event is not of enduring historical significance. Basically a local news story with a bit of speculative hype because it involved a missing child. ClubOranje^T 09:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generated coverage in 2009-2011, and even in 2017 - [3]. Alot of coverage. We decide notability of events (criminal or otherwise) based on coverage - not based on editor opinion of notability. The example in WP:NCRIME is actually quite relevant - "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.". In this case, there actually were lasting issues regarding maintenance of storm drains and other infrastructure safety related issues - estimated to cost quite a bit of money - [4].Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has NCRIME actually got to do with this? Was there a corporate manslaughter charge? I thought it was an accidental death. In additions, lots of things attract plenty of coverage and yet are still considered unsuitable for articles. I presume also that you are aware of WP:OSE? - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the quoted example from NCRIME above. This was originally treated as a kidnapping (riveting NZ media). The example cited in NCRIME is that the same notability standards apply even if the alleged crime turns out not to be a crime - e.g. the runaway bride. In this case, one could argue it is still a crime (negligiance by city authorities, or guardians) - but such a claim is not required per NCRIME. In any case this meets GNG and does not fail on NOT (no, this is not a standard obit on the death of a person).Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer has not presented an overwhelming case for deletion. The onus is not on those who want to Keep to show why it should be kept; the onus is on the proposer and Delete supporters to show convincingly why it should be deleted. Akld guy (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were canvassed by the article creator, which negates pretty much anything you say. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. He was canvassed for Disappearance of David Guerrero ([5]) - not this one - in which he commented before he was canvassed for Guerrero (probably on the basis of his comment here - seeing Sitush nominated both). Akld guy was editing this page (e.g. in 20 Sep 2017) - prior to Sitush's nom.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I also want to point out that User:Sitush made 19 edits to this article immediately before nominating it for deletion. Among those edits, he entirely removed referenced material about deficiencies in the police search. It's not entirely ethical to heavily redact an article, then nominate it for deletion, and leads me to question User:Sitush's motivation. Akld guy (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with some of Sitush's edits prior to the AfD, I don't with others. Taking out references and details on the funeral that are deemed trivial by an editor (but received SIGCOV) just prior to an AfD does raise some questions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. However, there isn't much AGF being shown in the other direction, here or at the related articles I nominated. I've been around here for 10 years and still make mistakes but I can't remember the last time I was called out for incorrectly removing stuff I consider to be trivial! In fact, I have something of a reputation for being very good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff. I stand by every edit I made to that article. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sitush did not just offer an opinion; he backed it up with policies that, unfortunately, are often neglected. Many stories are shared in the media but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WP:EVENTCRIT, whichever part of it you want to look at, holds one thing on a pedestal: historical importance. Routine reporting in bursts does not demonstrate that here. Using the storm drain in the case of a dead girl as evidence of "lasting" importance is both a weak argument and incredibly distasteful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the child dies by falling into a faulty, open stormdrain and dies a horrific death 36m below, the state of such infrastructure is quite relevant as evidenced by the NZ media coverage of the stormdrains.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly relevant to the case. I never questioned that. That does not address anything in my deletion rationale, unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The state of NZ infrastructure may indeed justify an article on that subject. It does not justify this article, although it could be redirected to such a thing and would merit a paragraph in it. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons Sitush gave at the top of this article are vague and could be applied to virtually any of the cases at List of people who disappeared mysteriously or List of unsolved deaths. I would like to know why Sitush has focused on this case in particular. There's something going on here that needs explanation. The onus is on the Delete people to convincingly demonstrate why the article should be deleted, while others of a similar nature are not being targeted. Akld guy (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akld guy I am not Sitush. I suggest you either ask him or stop casting aspirations. Please note, however, Sitush has not focused on this case in particular, having recently nominated other missing person cases for deletion. He has also stated that he has noticed similar articles lacking notability but is being cautious by doing a WP:BEFORE search. Personally, I think you should be praising him for that instead of showing bad faith.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're miles off regarding me, Akld. Back off. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a violoation of the not news principal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on going sporadic national media coverage in NZ with recent mentions on national radio in May and a national newspaper in August. Meets notability for an event and is likely to be referenced when there are incidents around infrastructure maintenance/safety into the future in NZ. NealeFamily (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article says next to nothing about the infrastructure issues and instead focusses mostly on repeating hyperbolic speculation that, alas, is common in such cases (and did contain a lot of trivial guff that was more suited to a tribute webpage). If you work for the police, you'll know just how many nutjobs make accusatory etc reports/sightings after disappearances and, yes, the police unfortunately have to check them out. It is the norm. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree that the article as it stands is inadequate coverage of the topic and needs a substantial tidy up - the primary reason for retaining it is that this particular case is notable within a NZ context and accept that it is probably not notable on a global scale. NealeFamily (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NealeFamily WP does not have such a concept as "not notable on a global scale". If it's notable in New Zealand, then it's notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Schwede 66 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the discussion was pointing at that idea, hence my comment. NealeFamily (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear violation of NOTNEWS. I won't go into details about the death but such article may lead creation of any recent death of just anyone after the investigation has been reported more than two times. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article would hardly open the case for every minor case being entered into Wiki. It is the New Zealand context of the event and its impact on the way local authorities manage infrastructure that gives it notability. I agree that the article does not at this stage bring this out with any clarity and needs a lot of tidying up. I can understand the views expressed by those wishing to delete it based on its current content, but would oppose doing so to allow time to remedy its inadequacies. NealeFamily (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretty much saying what I said above. To paraphrase, it is the wrong content under the wrong title. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - you want to delete the article. It is the way in which the content has been presented that needs a tidy up. Also, the title is an accurate description of the event so I am not suggesting it be changed. NealeFamily (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. There was no crime, she was one of thousands of children who die due to accidental falls annually, and her body was found quickly. Why and how did this have such an effect? Why is this page an article in an encyclopedia? When did the consensus change that articles automatically remain unless a nominator convinces skeptics by clear and convincing evidence? Bearian (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it meets WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unusual factor was that there was a period of 7 days in which nobody knew what had happened. The area was searched, but there was a deficiency in the police search that resulted in her or her remains being missed. All details of this deficiency in the police search were removed by User:Sitush in a series of edits just before he nominated the article for AfD. Because the area was (apparently) searched thoroughly, the presumption was that the child had been abducted, a highly unusual event in New Zealand.

This changed the status of the case from missing person to kidnapping. Sitush misrepresented the situation as "wild speculation re: possible abductors". In fact, the police officially changed the status. See List of people who disappeared mysteriously for a list of cases that are in many instances far less notable than this one. Akld guy (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Carlease Simms[edit]

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

I realise that this thing has citations but we're not a missing persons database and, really, there doesn't seem to be any substance to this article beyond routine reports. There is nothing to verify inclusion in Category:Crime in New Jersey. Does it really meet the spirit of WP:GNG ? Sitush (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically falls under "Wikipedia is not news." Even if it is old news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, Sitush I think you are going to have a major clean-up on your hands. The editor who created this page has also written a series of articles which, in my opinion, falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Missing persons cases are interesting subjects for the media to cover; some established a historical significance while others, like this one, are routine in nature. Nothing about this strikes me as WP:DIVERSE or of long-term importance to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick I tend to agree but I am somewhat restricted by my poor access to US news sources etc, many of which are paywalled, and thus my ability to do WP:BEFORE. Any help would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here that meets the notability standard and nothing else turns up in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to pass GNG and NCRIME - sourcing in article doesn't establish notability. Note that editor opinion on importance is not relevant - but coverage - which in this case does not seem to exist. Willing to change my vote if someone finds a large collection of 1980s newspaper sources - which I haven't been able to find in a BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 9[edit]

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

Contested PROD, totally unremarkable airline route. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of any importance or being noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia, so hardly justifies a stand-alone article for one of thousands of unremarkable scheduled flights. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been speedy. Rhadow (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill airline flight. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crash and burn.... I mean Delete, nothing to see here. No sources here either.47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a WP:MILL route; there's nothing unusual about it. Specifically, it's not about a crash or other disastrous event that occurred on that route. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tend to be nice to aviation articles, but this serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's just a regular un-extraordinary flight. --Oakshade (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ground aircraft - Delete - not fit for purpose on Wikipedia. Doesn't meet GNGs and is another bog-standard flight. Can this go as an WP:A7 CSD? GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 01:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had expected this to be about an airline disaster or something of note. Unfortunately, this article could be one of any million articles about an entirely unremarkable route. Not only is this flight unremarkable, it makes no claim of significance either. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A7 as no sources to back up the claims, not even from a Google search. ToThAc (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A flight is not a real person, animal, organisation, band, web content or event so A7 does not apply. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Ritchie333 says, speedy deletion is not an option (outside of IAR), so AfD is the appropriate route. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous consensus to not keep as a stand-alone article. There were some suggestions made to merge this per WP:ATD, but (in addition to being in the numerical minority), there are some cogent arguments why a merge would not be a good idea. So, going with a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional pulse rifles[edit]

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

This article is pure listcruft, as there is nothing to indicate the topic of fictional pulse rifles in particular is notable, as compared to fictional weapons in general. It's also just a collection of unreferenced trivia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment toss this into the same bin with the other manifold articles about fictional weapons. Rhadow (talk)
Merge into Weapons in science fiction per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what part of the article you think is acceptable for merging. There are no reliable sources in the entire article, the majority violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging it with an article which does have RS would solve the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue of not providing encyclopedic context to the content in this current article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing much benefit to the article - it's a future buzzword that sounds cool so it's been used a bunch of places but other than that there's no real unifying content. There's even a few random future weapons that aren't called a pulse-whatever in there. Artw (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is TVTropes style material. None of the list entries (which would be weapons, not the video games they are from) have their own page. No content is worth merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:ATD-M. Contra Zxcvbnm, merging into a notable article eliminates the need for individual elements to be RS'ed as long as the whole is. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB cover the use of such sources quite thoroughly. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-M is in this case overruled by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's contingent on the content in the article being suitable for Wikipedia, and it's not a free license to keep indiscriminate content. If the content was suitable but not individually notable that would be another story._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. This is not an indiscriminate list, it's an overly discriminate list, but you're far from being the only person to make this mistake. If you disagree with me, please list which of the clauses of WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually applies here. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IPCV - "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged". I guess it might just fall under "indiscriminate" the word, rather than "indiscriminate" the policy though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPCV is an essay, neither guideline nor policy. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is policy. By misquoting it, you've badly overstated the case for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I realized that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is linked to in WP:LISTCRUFT with regards to miscellany, meaning that it is a legitimate guideline/policy to use when discussing lists. If you think it's unrelated then perhaps you should bring it up and start a debate at the talk page of WP:LISTCRUFT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An essay pointing to a policy does not automatically mean that policy is relevant to the topic of that essay. In this case however, the first point at WP:INDISCRIMINATE does say that encyclopedic context should be provided via RS for fictional plot elements. However, that would easily be fixed in this case by directing it to a parent topic article with RS. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Isn't this the same discussion as Phased plasma gun? Rhadow (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar but different. That is one particular type of weapon from one moderate-sized fictional franchise, this is a list of weapons from various franchises having the same name in common. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is listcruft that properly belongs on wikia or TvTropes. I've been unable to identify any content worth merging, or any potential target that would be improved by including any of this. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FanORcruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to raygun, which seems to be the catch-all Wikipedia article for energy-based sci-fi weaponry. Pulse rifles are some of the most recognizable weapons in sci-fi, [6] so the content is worth preserving somewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be true, if the definition of "pulse rifle" wasn't so vague. One pulse rifle in one sci-fi work could be completely diffrent in mechanics and usage, to the point where the words are just nonsense technobabble. Putting it in raygun would simply expand the amount of original research already there with even more vague original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what you'd specifically merge, or into what article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is simply illiterate to use the word research where Phased plasma gun, Pulse rifle, or Raygun is concerned. The definition of research is "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." There are no facts to be discovered about fictional weapons in TV and movies. They are figments of the writers' room imagination. I understand it is fun to read and watch and speculate about these weapons, but the result is not encyclopedic. In college, a list of rayguns would get you kicked out of the class. You could probably get an A if you could relate rayguns in contemporary science fiction to research efforts in the Reagan administration, in relation to the Cold War space race. Rhadow (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community Displacement in Philadelphia[edit]

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

I've declined a WP:PROD on this, as a number of different editors have worked on it for eight years without apparently seeing a problem so any deletion won't be uncontroversial; however, it's unsourced and possibly unsalvageable. Procedural nom so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 13:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is organized by neighbhorhoods. I wonder if List of Philadelphia neighborhoods can have a section on community displacement pressures and include material from this. There are also articles on the separate neighborhoods, but just mentioning the issue of community displacement in each one separately does not add up to a unified coverage of the issue in one place. --do ncr am 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, the article creator long ago moved her userpage and usertalk page to the article and article's talk page. Could you please reverse that move, and then re-arrange the banners and dead-link bot notices appropriately? Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, and completely lacking in inline citations. But only delete after the creator's talkpage and its history have been restored. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Rename/Refocus - Though it needs inline citations (and a lead, etc.) it does have a list of references and the parts I skimmed through didn't read like OR (which doesn't usually have lots of dates, statistics, basic facts, etc. My inclination is that this would overlap significantly with the subject Gentrification of Philadelphia, for which we have several comparable articles (San Francisco, Vancouver, Atlanta, etc.). It could also be merged into a newly expanded section on Philadelphia in the gentrification article, though I do think Philadelphia could sustain its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that were to happen it would more than likely have to be userfied or draftified and then a lot of time spent verifying the information and providing the inline citations. I really don't personally think this can stand in article space unless it were to get a major overhaul beforehand. The article creator hasn't edited in 7.5 years. Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor, mostly us-sourced (huge external links section - mostly to primary sources of information and a dead activist site) ESSAY about gentrification of various neighborhoods in Philadelphia without a proper lead section or any connection between the list of neighborhoods. I'm not sure this would merit an article (separate of the article on Philadelphia and the specific neighborhoods) - but at the current state it simply can't stay.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename and edit. I added a lede section primarily based on an excellent 2014 Philadelphia Daily News special pullout section of multiple articles: The Problems and the Promise: Gentrification in Philadelphia. The topic is notable and I think User:Rhododendrites suggests a better and more common WP:COMMONNAME with Gentrification of Philadelphia. I think what is here, while needing editing, is salvageable, though I would not object to anyone stubbing down what they think is original research. Lacking inline citations is not, I believe, a valid reason for deletion but perhaps this has been changed? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageable WP:POINTY WP:ESSAY reliant on WP:OR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need discussion and consensus on 24.151.10.165's changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is a blunt instrument to improve this article. The problem seems to be in the form of references (none inline) rather than lack of references (plenty). It would take more than a week to fix it, probably. On another note, the article would improve with a brief discussion of the displacement of business, from the downtown area east of Broad as recent as the 1980s, to west of Broad today. Rhadow (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Rhadow (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is nowhere near "unsalvageable". It is a hot mess, badly under-referenced, and with the "External links" section and REF fields inside {{cite}} templates being used as a jury-rigged way to achieve the effect of collecting the references in one place and decluttering the main text—an effect better accomplished with list-defined references and the {{r}} template. It will be a lot of work to fix, but not nearly as much as some of the users favoring deletion seem to think. Many of the links are dead, but can be revived with a little searching. As an experiment, I revived one single dead link, Penn Offers Cash Incentive to Increase Home ownership in University City. A Google search on its title revealed this live link to the article as the very first hit. With that, I was able to construct a proper reference^[1]—which turns out to be a source for many, if not most, of the claims made in the section "University City". Granted, it's a primary source for many of the claims, but that's a different matter from complete lack of sourcing. This article doesn't look like WP:OR or an essay to me—it just looks badly referenced. A bit more searching easily turns up secondary references for the topic. For example, this Google search term:

"University City" Philadelphia displacement

yielded two very interesting references.^[2]^[3] Repeat as needed.

I agree with Rhadow that deletion is a blunt instrument. So is draftification. WP:DRAFTIFY says little about the circumstances under which draftification is appropriate, but it refers back to its currently inactive predecessor WP:INCUBATOR, which makes it clear that incubation/draft status is a last resort for articles that would otherwise require deletion. As the section WP:ATD in the policy WP:DEL says:

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.

The essay section WP:NOTCLEANUP and the essay WP:DINC expand eloquently on this point.

^ Holtzman, Phyllis (March 30, 1998). "Penn offers cash incentive to increase home ownership in University City". Penn News. Archived from the original on 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2017-09-23.
^ Moskowitz, Peter (December 31, 2014). "Philadelphia universities' expansion drove wider gentrification, tension". Al Jazeera America. Archived from the original on 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2017-09-23.
^ Webb, Molly (July 11, 2013). "The long and troubling history of Penntrification in West Philly". Curbed Philadelphia. Archived from the original on 2017-01-29. Retrieved 2017-09-23.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This appears to me to be a potentially useful article on changes in neighbourhood dynamics in a major city. This is a phenomenon that happens in many places. Similarly in London we have the gentrification of Islington and parts of the East End of London, which used to be regarded as working class areas are now desirable locations for city office workers. It is probably a subject that is going to be difficult to find multiple academic references for, but the criterion is not "verified", but "verifiable". Peterkingiron (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was mostly created by one user who put all the references at the end of the article instead of referencing them inside the article. [7] I have just posted on the editor's talk page telling them about this deletion discussion, since the nominator forgot to do so. This is ample coverage for this. Dream Focus 11:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still don't see sourcing required to change my vote (it's not just that all the refs are on the bottom - but most of them are simply not RS!). However, if kept at the very least this needs to be renamed - to gentrification + date bracket. Gentrification (or the opposite - slum creation) - is a process that occurred a few times over the years. The current article seems to focus on the present state/trend - and not cover past events in neighborhoods - this either needs to be addressed with an historic perspective or alternatively renamed to reflect the focus on current gentrification (which might be a failure of WP:NOTNEWS - which also bothers me here - I would expect gentrification/decline (e.g. North Philadelphia which initially housed rich estates and morphed into Philadelphia Badlands.....) - to be given equal weight and be covered in a historic perspective - not a current one).Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source above for University City is from 1998, and even the more recent second and third sources clearly refer to long-term trends. —Syrenka V (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pew Charitable Trust source from 2014 is reliable, comprehensive, and covers trends back to 2000. This may not be much compared to the city's centuries-long history, but it is more than enough to rule out WP:NOTNEWS considerations. The comprehensiveness is especially important in view of the WP:CFORK issue with the pages on the individual neighborhoods. Much of the neighborhood-specific information in the present article may need to be moved into those pages, leaving only comprehensive information about the city as a whole. But even then, there will be enough like the Pew source to justify this page. —Syrenka V (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in true historical depth are not especially hard to find either. I tried a Google search on "philadelphia 19th century gentrification" and came up with this report from the Federal Reserve bank's research department: Philadelphia-specific and in multi-century depth. Moving the neighborhood-specific information to their individual articles will make room for more historical balance here. —Syrenka V (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were ALL correct -- The article is worth saving, if we MOVE it to Gentrification in Philadelphia, rationalizing it with other Gentrification in ... articles. Community Displacement in Philadelphia was an unreferenced polemic. It is now ready for re-purposing. Look. Community displacement is a very real phenomenon, but not in Philadelphia. The growth there is too low. "displacement and higher mobility play minor if any roles as forces of change in gentrifying neighborhoods." That IS worthy of a well-researched article, but we don't argue about that here. Rhadow (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming to Gentrification in Philadelphia sounds good—most of the better references appear to focus on that specific aspect. Also, the more I think about it, WP:CFORK considerations do mandate moving the neighborhood-specific material to the individual neighborhood pages, where the sourcing from here will help with improving the referencing on those pages. There will still be enough comprehensive material about Philadelphia as a whole, like the Pew and Federal Reserve sources I linked above, to support the continued existence of a (smaller, better organized, and better referenced) separate page on the general phenomenon of Gentrification in Philadelphia. One of the aims of inclusionist opposition to page deletion is to ensure that individual pages do not become unmanageably large and poorly organized.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With five deletes and only three weak Keeps, I don't think I can close this as anything other than delete. ClubOranje makes, I think, a good point about the two articles. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachmat Irianto[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that he is Yet to appear in a fully professional league. Not meeting WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Although the player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, it does seem to pass WP:GNG, with multiple reliable sources (albeit not in English) that discuss this player. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per the above, the article already lists two sources which seem like significant non-routine coverage and a google search indicates that this is probably not all there is. Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a footballer does not pass the notability guidelines for footballers, the article should only be kept if they are notable for some non-football related thing, which this subject is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails subject specific guidelines WP:NFOOTBALL. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Some coverage but I consider it all WP:ROUTINE and it largely generated due to him being the son of a notable Indonesian international, which makes it human interest not notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. ClubOranje^T 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Fails WP:FOOTY but may scrape through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson[edit]

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

I realise that this thing has citations but we're not a missing persons database and, really, there doesn't seem to be any substance to this article beyond routine reports. There is nothing to verify inclusion in Category:Crime in Saskatchewan. Does it really meet the spirit of WP:GNG ? Sitush (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have loads of similar articles but, of course, some are clearly worthy of inclusion, eg: Disappearance of Etan Patz. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show that this is more than a run-of-the mill disappearance case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of others like this, eg: Disappearance of Carlease Simms. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed, we're not a missing persons database and this is a run-of-the-mill disappearance case, as John Pack Lampart states. Perhaps the article creator can explain how he feels this meets WP:GNG?Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:VICTIM (if there was foul play) as well as WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article repeats the content of his (1971) entry in List of people who disappeared mysteriously, which is a very long article, where each person listed has a substantive article. My preference might have been to redirect to the list entry, but that would make him the one person in that list who does not have an article. The question thus may be whether his paragraph should also be deleted from the list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted then I would remove it from the list also, per WP:NLIST. Merely happening is not a reason for inclusion there. However, I am aware that there is a bit of a walled garden involving lists/articles/categories, whereby the existence of one is assumed by some people to merit the existence of both others. IMO, that creates a circularity of dubious notability. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing in article is not enough. Little additional sourcing in a BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little strong reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG — this is based almost entirely on missing persons organizations' own primary source content, not media coverage. As noted above, we are not a missing persons database — while I'm not about to undertake a comprehensive project of reviewing every single article listed in List of people who disappeared mysteriously, I have extremely strong doubts that the other instances listed there necessarily all pass our notability standards either. Some do, sure — but I strongly suspect that many don't. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mick (screenplay)[edit]

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

There may be an unproduced screenplay somewhere that merits an article, but this isn't it. It isn't even mentioned in the writer's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced since 2009, and, in any case, not independently notable of the author, Eoghan Harris. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not least for the obvious WP:GNG issues. This article seems to stand as a showcase example of why we have WP:BKCRYSTAL notability criteria. Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Jai Singh of Mewar. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Jai Singh[edit]

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

Quasi-Procedural.See WP:ANI#Request that Rana Jai Singh be deleted. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citations. Could be anybody. Aspro (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jai Singh of Mewar, a distinct individual, as a plausible alternate name. I would normally suggest the latter as a first option, but the sourcing in that article is also quite poor. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be the same person. The Siege of Chittorgarh ended over 85 years before he was born. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:6165:1F7D:7635:5C2D (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's the same person, I'm saying that the person described at the target is a rana named Jai Singh, so that this is at least a useful search term. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations to any books or external links(not even blogs or pages). Besides, it shouldn't be redirected to articles like iege of Chittorgarh because there is no evidence that if he even was in the siege. All the books say Jaimal Rathore, and some also include Patta Sisodia, but none of them mention him. He is a non-notable, or possibly even a non-existant person. Also, he shouldn't be redirected to Jai Singh of Mewar, because that Jai Singh was a jut of the late 18th century and this Jai Singh is from the 16th century. So we can't link him with someone who came two centuries after him.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there's any connection between them, only that a reader might conceivably search "Rana Jai Singh" to find a rana named Jai Singh. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then it should be redirected.

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G7 -- author request made on article talk page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College of Ayurved & Research Centre[edit]

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

Because A7 wont do the trick Roxy the dog. bark 10:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WikiBear2000, if you want the text copied into your userspace so you don't lose it, drop me a note on my talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Pilot[edit]

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

Bio about a journalist with no actual claim of notability. While there are a number of primary sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources and nothing to show why WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG would be met. It's tricky with journalists, because when searching for sources you come across their own writing (which is irrelevant for purposes of notability) and that may make it hard to find the pieces about them rather than by them, but in any case I can say that my search for sources yielded nothing useful. (The promotional style of the article doesn't help - it looks like there may be some COI involved, but that's not the reason I'm nominating it for deletion. I am simply unable to find the sources to show notability.) bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being a journalist and TV producer is not enough to make one notable on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi everyone, I'm the author of the article in question. I'm a newer editor, and this is my first AfD discussion, so hopefully I am following protocol. I was researching the subject in Wikipedia, and due to her last name also being a proper noun, I was directed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Cox. I think having this article helps disambiguate the subject from people named Jessica who are pilots.

WP:NAUTHOR states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The subject is a producer at The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (which I'm a huge fan of) and since she produces all of the stand up comedy portions of the show, plays a significant role.

I looked around for other examples of authors/journalists who are listed in Wikipedia and found two subjects with similar notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Meyerowitz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Polgreen

I'm happy to add on to the article to better establish notability, but I think the subject falls into the Author notability guidelines, and appears alongside similar Wikipedia articles of other authors. Thank you.WikiBear2000 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, sources currently used on this page are mostly "fakes". They tell nothing on the subject. Which source tells she is a producer of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert? Here is source currently used on the page to support the statement. It does not tell it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "talent booker" not notable per se, agree that sources not RS. Agricola44 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:WikiBear2000, and welcome! creating articles is a great thing to do. Producers and journalists can be notable, of course. To keep this article, we would need stuff like profiles of her in WP:RSes, and/or articles about the show that go into some detail about her role in creating it. Ping me if you can bring that sort of sourcing and I'll take a second look, but failing that I have to say delete'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keystone State Wrestling Alliance Alumni[edit]

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

List of unremarkable persons is not independently notable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep.Wikipedia:Notability (people) "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists criteria are both met. Also, there is an Under Construction tab that you apparently didn't pay attention to...Gvstaylor1 (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose yes, I can't support this when Template:Under construction was on a new article and it was being worked on. It's an uncivil and inconsiderate thing to do to an editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - For now. I don't see how a list of alumni is independently notable from the company, and I don't think a WP:SPINOFF article is needed because the main article isn't incredibly large...but there is an under construction tag, so the article creator should be given a little more time to prove notability as long as he or she is actively working on it. Nikki♥311 01:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The period for a procedural close has lapsed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for having been rude. Subject is clearly notable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth Tech[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a neologism that has not gained much traction. Article created by single purpose account to promote a book. Very few relevant Google hits. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is a place to record an established term, not to promote one. Capitalization indicates a promotional intent. Not enough coverage yet. Rhadow (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page creator has defended the term, on the talk page and elsewhere, saying that it gets 40,000 Google results. However, that's just the count Google puts on the first page of results, and as so often happens with Google, if you start paging through the results, you find that at about the 150 mark it tells you that the rest of the results are basically duplicates of those already shown (and even with those results included, it stops in the three figures)... and looking at those 150, many are not the usage being described here. So this is a neologism without much traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is so lightly paraphrased from the two references that it's arguably a copyvio ("Fintech companies that provide alternative solutions to incumbent wealth management companies" versus "fintech companies that offer an alternative to traditional wealth management firms", etc.). Even setting that aside, the first reference is mostly a long quote from somebody's LinkedIn post, and the preface to that quote says "Ah, a new word is born" — i.e., a neologism. A news search finds a smattering of results for the past few months, but not enough, IMO, to indicate that the term itself deserves an article. Plenty of news and general hits are false positives, too; e.g., "as they have grown in wealth, tech firms have..." (By way of comparison, the financial technology article is pretty dreadful, but its presence is more justifiable. A redirect to financial technology might be warranted, but there isn't any content in the Wealth Tech page worth merging.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some uses of this evident in a BEFORE - e.g. - [8] or [9] - however usage seems to be quite limited. I'm not sure this would make a dictionary or glossary - and I don't think it should make an ecyclopedia - YET - WP:TOOSOON. Article is in additional in a poor state.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) f e minist 14:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petrifaction (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambig. Only links to a single unrelated article, which can be accomplished by a hatnote rather than a disambiguation article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Works well enough as it stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrified (disambiguation). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since there are three items (including the one on mythology), this is a valid disambiguation. Thus, it should stand. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @RileyBugz:As the one on mythology is related, it does not require a disambiguation, per Wikipedia policy. Rather, it should be placed in the "See also" of the parent article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The petrifaction of characters in mythology, which has nothing to do with the petrifaction of fossils, is simply known as "petrifaction" and so is a perfectly standard dab entry. – Uanfala 10:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with what Uanfala said above. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RileyBugz and Uanfala, and merge Petrified (disambiguation) into this one as a word form to consolidate two highly related short DABs. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo presents: New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star[edit]

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

No idea why this was accepted through AfC, it fails WP:GNG. Non-notable video game, or at least WP:TOOSOON. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it has been covered by a bunch of RSs (Nintendo Life, Famitsu, Destructoid, Gematsu), the depth of the coverage is not much more than "It has been announced for Europe and Japan and is coming in November". I imagine this will get more coverage as the release date comes closer, but for now it does not seem to meet the GNG. There isn't a series article, so I would suggest that we redirect to the article on the first game.--IDV^talk 08:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct article name would be Nintendo Presents: New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star and most likely due to WP:COMMONNAME it would be shortened to New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star. The current title's unsuitable for a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The correct title of the game is Nintendo presents: New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star, and thus the article name should at least not be Nintendo Presents: New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star. If it's a non-notable video game, then all the games should maybe be put into a single article as the same would also apply to the previous three titles. Obviously, with the games all selling more than 500,000 units worldwide it's the question whether they are really non-notable._{DanielFreed (TALK)} 12:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter if it sold 10 billion units, that's just citing WP:BIGNUMBER as criteria for notability. It also needs to satisfy criteria of WP:SUSTAINED, which is pretty rare for upcoming games. In any case, no matter how it's capitalized, IMO naming guidelines would tell you to cut out the "Nintendo presents" as it's not how it would be referred to by anyone besides official reviews/marketing material, and is unnecessary for distinguishing the game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was just in response to you saying the correct name would be Nintendo Presents: New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star instead of Nintendo presents: New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star. Also, would you suggest to put the entire series into a single article instead then as the same issues you name are also true for Nintendo presents: New Style Boutique and Nintendo presents: New Style Boutique 2. One may argue that the individual titles aren't relevant enough, but as a series they definitely are. So what do you think, any suggestions? The existence and release of this game should definitely be documented on Wikipedia in one way or another._{DanielFreed (TALK)} 14:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielFreed: On Wikipedia, notability is determined through looking at coverage of a subject in sources we consider reliable (so typically magazines, books, websites with dedicated staff, but not blogs and fansites; for a list of reliable video game sources, see WP:VGRS); to meet the "general notability guideline", a subject needs to have in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Previous games in the Style Savvy/New Style Boutique series have been reviewed by reliable sources, so they are fine. This one does not yet have enough in-depth coverage, just short "the game will be released in November" type articles, so it's just too early to write an article for it at this point. Since there isn't a Style Savvy series article, you could create a "sequels" section in the first game's article and write about the game there for now.--IDV^talk 12:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically in two months a separate article would make sense as reviews and a Metacritic score would appear? The coverage will not be too different from Nintendo Presents: New Style Boutique 2, as the games aren't quite aiming for the audience that frequents typical gaming outlets and thus won't receive the coverage of a Mario Odyssey. So it's merely an issue of "too soon" than "not notable" in your eyes?_{DanielFreed (TALK)} 14:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - "non-notable" only means there isn't enough coverage right now. Once you have a bunch of reviews, or other in-depth coverage (like developer interviews, preview impressions, etc) you can create an article.--IDV^talk 12:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and wait for more sources, per the above comments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ for now per IDV et al. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On the topic of the name, it should probably be New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star per WP:CONCISE. For the draft version, that's Draft:New Style Boutique 3 – Styling Star. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, for now. If an American release is announced, though, it should be moved to that title, to be consistent with the other games' articles.--IDV^talk 13:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, going to change my !vote. This should be merged and redirected to its prequel at Style Savvy: Fashion Forward under a "Sequel" section until such time as the video game is reviewed. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - for now. There might be enough to muster up an okay stub, but the article creator certainly didn't do that here. Move to draft space until someone writes an actual article, with actual WP:VG/S type sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it now, the discussion has pretty much ended with a uniform decision. _{DanielFreed (TALK)} 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These things usually run for 7 days unless things get really lopsided and these close it per WP:SNOW, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I see little reason to continue the discussion though as the points made are all valid and a further discussion won't add anything to that. Even if new points are raised, the article would need to be moved over to the shorter title without "Nintendo presents:". Therefore I blanked the page in good faith and listed the article for speedy deletion under CSD G7._{DanielFreed (TALK)} 17:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems... like an overeaction, as most people so far didn't want to delete it, but rather, either redirect the article, or keep it as a rough draft until it meets the notability requirements. But there's very little there, so I guess there wouldn't be much to recreate should the time come either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- It mainly contained the release, developer and name information, just like the Wikipedia page of the prequel. If anyone wants to create a page for the game after release, it should be possible. _{DanielFreed (TALK)} 19:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhos-Engan[edit]

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

not notable Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be complete unnotable. The article states nearly nothing and provides no real sources. MB 03:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication, and searches did not reveal, how it passes WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ippolito[edit]

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

Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of list entries and social media presence, but scant press coverage. One newspaper article doesn't convince me of notability. Rhadow (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Francis[edit]

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

Notability only seems to be in the context of Britain's Got Talent. Is this enough for an article in his own right? Boneymau (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TCM Automobiles[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find a couple sources from this German Wikipedia article. this and this, so it exists I guess. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Napoleon Blownaparts[edit]

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

No references, does not seem to meet WP:GNG Shaded0 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny name redirect to... um... er... the bin! - Seriously - Delete Per obvious failure of WP:GNG and applicable specific guidelines. Google has got lots of sites advertising their music, various fanpages, some mentions on music sites etc, but no independent reliable sources. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The vast majority of the content fails WP:V and the band doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NBAND. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 East Point Software. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua GT[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, could not find enough significant sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the developing entity East Point Software per WP:GNG but also WP:ATD. --Izno (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd East Point Software, doesn't seem notable either._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-R Redirect to developer as valid search term before nominating for deletion. If the dev article is later deleted, so be it, but until then, that's the best course. czar 07:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to developer. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Davilex Games which is also at AfD. The future of this redirect will therefore depend on the outcome of that debate Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A2 Racer[edit]

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

Non-notable game Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per nom. Not sufficient sources to pass GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through Google; most of the news coverage is in Dutch, indicating that it probably does not have notability (in that there are very few works, which may also be local, not in that the single language makes the sources unusable). Redirect to the developing entity, which is Davilex Games. --Izno (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Davilex Games seems like it violates WP:NCORP and should be deleted as well. I nominated it for AfD and prodded a related title that was also non notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article PC Games - this article is a one-sentence article, and a merge with a longer article should not prove difficult. Vorbee (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vorbee: The article you linked is about a video game magazine. Why is that a suitable merge target? --Izno (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies - I meant to put in PC game.Vorbee (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would have the wrong WP:WEIGHT there. --Izno (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It has to be related to the article in question in more than just a tangential way._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-R Redirect to developer as valid search term before nominating for deletion. If the dev article is later deleted, so be it, but until then, that's the best course. czar 07:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say Redirect to developer, I take it you mean redirect to Davilex Games. Vorbee (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Izno said, "Redirect to the developing entity, which is Davilex Games." czar 15:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Clark Johnson III[edit]

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

Non notable local historian, BLP of works like: https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9780738552545 . Cannot find singificant coverage or indication of significance in an initial search. Sadads (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete historian writing minor histories of a small county, nothing notable at all here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require more than just local attention, and even that is thin. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Gerasole[edit]

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

No sources included in the article. Andise1 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning some "best webcast" award does not make one notable, especially when the only source for that is the website of the granting organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP with article having no real claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Although there are some sources that discuss the subject, there just aren't enough that go in depth. This means that the subject does not fulfill our standard of verifiability. Thus, it should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Rendlesham Forest incident. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Warren (Rendlesham)[edit]

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

Long under-referenced article about BLP, that looks in some cases to be a character assassination (as per the talk page). Its highly unlikely that the individual himself is notable in a way substantially divorced from the incident itself, which seems fairly well documented. Sadads (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Nom seems to be right that this was a BLP1E topic, now almost forgotten (I found 44 links of various qualities). Suggest we redirect to Rendlesham Forest incident, itself a pretty flaky article, where this can form a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article asserts the person here is the same as another we have an article on, with no sourcing, this violates our policies on biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might well be the right outcome, but 1) wouldn't we want to delete the (uncited) Art Wallace instead, or make it redirect also, and (2) since the redirect is plausible, would redirect to the Rendlesham Forest incident not be more helpful? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn WP:FRINGE-related topic. WP:BLP1E & WP:PROMO also apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear and I withdraw my nomination. Also, cleanup has already begun. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Oregon State Beavers football[edit]

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

While few would deny the notability of the topic, the present state of this severely bloated, mostly unreferenced article might warrant a nuke-it-and-start-over approach. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Oregon State Beavers football and merge selectively. The main page isn't too big, and the vast majority of the sub-article is completely unsourced, so it shouldn't be too difficult to fit in (though it may be difficult to find things to fit in). Besides, if my team doesn't even get its own history sub-article, neither should they (not entirely facetious, no other college football team in the Pac-12 seems to have one that isn't an exact duplicate of the main article - hello Arizona). ansh 666 05:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I won't stand in the way, but good luck cleaning it up. ansh 666 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The subject is clearly notable, and the fact that no other Pac-12 team yet has such an article is no reason for deleting (compare History of Alabama Crimson Tide football, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, LSU, Ohio State, Tennessee, Texas, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, etc.). A lot of the lengthy detail about individual games should be moved to season articles, e.g. 1914 Oregon Agricultural Aggies football team. This article should be more of a forest-level overview with individual game details dealt with in the season articles. The solution here is copy-editing not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. We don't necessarily have to delete the article to fix it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep while sometimes an article could be so poorly written that deletion is better and then start over, that's not the case here The topic is clearly notable, surpassing WP:GNG extensively. Even the nominator indirectly admits the topic is notable. AFD should be for deletion, not for editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree there is too much tactical detail about individual games, but it just needs cleanup not deletion. Praemonitus (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Undisputed Era[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Individuals are notable, but the group is not. No significant coverage of the group in reliable independent sources. Only WP:ROUTINE match results. Also, WP:TOOSOON as, according to the article, they've only had one official match. Nikki♥311 02:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given. Isn't much else to say.★Trekker (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they may be notable in the future but not yet. Realistically it would likely be a minimum of sveral months before theee is enough coverage of the group as a whole for an article to be warranted.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individuals are notable, so the group must be notable as well. Hansen Sebastian 10:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

False. Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERIT). Nikki♥311 20:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, by that logic we would neeed to crate articles for every group in an 8 man tagteam match.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jdcomix (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Hands[edit]

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

No evidence of long-term notability. I also could support a merge to 2017 Women's March. Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (disclaimer: article creator): I'll have to do some additional research here, because a search for "Tiny Hands"+"Fiona Apple" yields thousands of results. I'll point editors to the German Wikipedia article about the same song, which shows this article has the potential to be expanded. I'll see if I can find some sources from March 2017 to present. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more inline citations to the article, all of which link to sources published post-January. But, I admit, the vast majority of coverage is from January 2017. There are lots of links posted on the article's talk page. I'm working on some other projects right now, so I can't commit to expand this article to its fullest potential immediately, but because I can't easily assess that the song is not notable, and based on the German Wikipedia article, I am going to vote to keep for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impeccable sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. To the best of my knowledge, long-term notability is not a requirement for notability, but I'd be happy to see it. I'll remind nominator of WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - After checking more thoroughly, this article is well sourced. I think that we should add more evidence of long term notability to the actual article, so I'm putting a notability tag instead. Jdcomix (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After several relists, the major argument seems to be split between keeping and merging. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yandex Maps[edit]

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill web mapping service that has been spamming Wikipedia with multiple articles on their service. Google search reveals plenty of primary coverage and very little independent coverage, certainly not enough to warrant a glut of articles.

Will be adding the rest of the articles to this nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Yandex Data Factory.

Adding Yandex.Direct.

Adding Yandex Disk.

Adding Yandex.Translate.

Adding Yandex.Taxi.

Adding Yandex Search.

All of these articles are promotional in nature rather than neutral descriptions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Yandex.Money. It is the most detailed of the sub-articles. There is still no reason why it is necessary to have so many articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you have not previously known about Yandex products, then this does not mean to delete thats articles. Eastern Europe enjoys these products. In Russia people use Yandex products more than Google products--Ffederal (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look: List of most popular websites--Ffederal (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notabilty of the website doesn't mean its product are notables. You got to prove the notability of each product with reference centered on each product. --Lacrymocéphale 13:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

400 books about Yandex.Maps/Яндекс.Карты, 300 000 news about Yandex.Maps/Яндекс.Карты. The same of other Yandex products, if you enter them into Google search--Ffederal (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

geohack also have link of Yandex Maps--Ffederal (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yandex Translator - built into the interface of Russian Wikipedia. Such a discussion of removal is a shame. It's like that in Russian Wikipedia will decide to remove articles about Google products--Ffederal (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources about Yandex services, even in English. Example: Russian search engine, Yandex, is the fourth-largest search engine in the world (Encyclopedia of E-Commerce Development, Implementation, and Management). — Vort (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many-Many links in Google search about "yandex products"--Ffederal (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not nominated Yandex. I acknowledge that the company is notable. The question is whether it requires so many spammy articles for its products. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Since there are many articles about Google's products and other Internet giants. And every product of Yandex has many authoritative sources--Ffederal (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Services are also described in sources: "Nearly 62% of all searches in the Russian-speaking segment of the Web occur on Yandex", "The company released the Russian internet's first contextual ad placement system, Yandex.Direct" (Multilingual Digital Marketing: Managing for Excellence in Online Marketing). — Vort (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Redirect and merge Great, so doesn't that mean this namespace, Yandex Maps, should just redirect to Yandex? The question is as to whether Yandex Maps is notable, independently of Yandex. No one is proposing that the article on "Yandex" be deleted. Also, this article has some significant problems with its sources: they appear to be author-less press-release types of announcements (the third one is to an insecure website) from sites with unknown editorial oversight. Based on these alone, I don't see reason to retain this separate from the Yandex article. KDS4444 ^(talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the press release in the article "Yandex Maps"? Sources normal. In the Russian Wikipedia issues do not arise about these sources. "sites with unknown editorial oversight"? - And this is an argument for deletion? So the translator at your service--Ffederal (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The question is as to whether Yandex Maps is notable, independently of Yandex." - Of course, Yandex Maps are noticeable, as well as Google Maps are noticeable compared to Google. Yandex.Maps have own navigator, own street view, own tracking of congestion, as Google. Also, Yandex Maps have "street view" of Evrest, which has no other maps. And geohack also have link of Yandex Maps. Therefore, deleting this article and others is mistake, and this will lead to an scandal. Wikipedists from eastern Europe are outraged--Ffederal (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting what I mean by "independent of Yandex". I mean having coverage independent of Yandex. Having links from other notable sites does not confer notability. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NORG for more about what it means to be notable. Most of the coverage in the news appears to be with regard to Yandex Maps removing Sakhalin Island from its database. The other coverage appears to be about Yandex with the Map division mentioned only trivially. A don't foresee a scandal for consolidating this article into the Yandex one nor do I fear an uprising in the east (that sounds like hyperbolic blackmail). KDS4444 ^(talk) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will not delete articles about Google products for merging into one article. Oh, I'm tired of proving you. Take and delete everything, and the article "Yandex" too... "Because this is all spam unknown Yandex company"--Ffederal (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth to search news also in Russian language: "Yandex.Maps" for Android and iOS received a major update (vesti.ru) — Vort (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444: Independent notability and independent coverage are different things. Example of independant coverage is the book from Maria Johnsen. Don't you think she is bought by Yandex? Example of independant notability is here: Яндекс для всех. All book (544 pages) is devoted solely to Yandex services, from which Yandex.Maps is described on 24 pages. That is more than enough for notability proof. — Vort (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book you mentioned appears to have only ONE mention of Yandex Maps, not 24, and as all of it is in Russian, I am not able to evaluate it further— if a Russian speaker were willing to have a look at it and evaluate it, I'd be all for that. KDS4444 ^(talk) 10:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444: Only at first two pages of Chapter 7 there are 3 mentions of "Yandex.Maps". Google translate can help to understand that all 24 pages in this book describes Yandex.Maps: [10]. Translation is not so good (sometimes "карты" are translated as "cards" instead of "maps" etc), but can give an idea what is written there. — Vort (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vort, unless you personally read Russian and can add some of these to support claims made in the existing article, the rest of us have no way of knowing if these are anything more than trivial mentions. That the word "Yandex Maps" exists (in Russian) in these places does not make it notable— we need to know what these things say about Yandex Maps, and we still do not. (I still do not— do you?.) KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444: Is Google translation at my last link so bad? — Vort (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any article too short to be a DYK, after removal of unreferenced or non-RS-cited material, into Yandex. Yandex does indeed seem to be notable. I don't really care about the others if they are substantiated -- this is in essence KDS4444's vote but with some more criteria-based wiggle room. Yes, they are very promotional. But that can be addressed via regular editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source in the article. Сreated the section "Criticism". I have found such sources:

9 Map Apps Alternative to Google Maps
List of 8 Best Alternative to Google Maps – Classic old Map

All of the maps there mentioned have their own articles on Wikipedia. And Yandex Maps there mentioned. And Yandex Maps should not have own article?--Ffederal (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the above articles into Yandex. They all need to be cut back a great deal to remove the promotion anyway, so you can do both at the same time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Promotional/instructional in its present form. Deb (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge at present. If later there is enough material for separate articles, they can be reconsidered. We do try to cover all countries in the world at the same level. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Robert McClenon Yandex.Money should be kept. We have article about the largest P2P payment systems in most countries. Alipay in China, Paytm in India, Interac e-Transfer in Canada, etc. I don't see how this is any different. Daylen (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yandex Search is largest too: Global Search Engine Optimization: Fine-Tuning Your International Search Engine Results. — Vort (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article "Yandex Maps" has over 10 interviki. Do not delete. It is necessary to correct the text a little, and everything is fine--178.95.206.187 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yandex Search, Maps, Direct, Translate, Taxi, and Disk. Those products are really popular in the post-Soviet area (plus some another countries). It doesn't mean that I like them (I'm using from time to time just the Disk and the Maps), but it's really important for millions of people. Well, I see that the articles are not in very good conditions, but it shall be an occasion for improving them, not for deleting.--Soul Train (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 01:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of notability and/ or popularity are not by themselves reasons to keep this article. The existence in over 10 interwikis does suggest notability, but does not demonstrate it (as each of these wikis has its own notability criteria, some of them with much lower standards than the English one). Also, !votes from IP addresses are routinely ignored.KDS4444 ^(talk) 10:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like the most appropriate option given that the references fail the criteria for establishing the notability of each subsidiary of Yandex. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Allegations of "spamming" are not relevant at AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is another groundless assertion of notability (WP:ITSNOTABLE). KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 01:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yandex, the main competitor of the Google. Yandex makes all the innovations that have already created Google. So why not combine all the articles about the products of Google in one article?--Ffederal (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this deletion discussion is not about Google, it is about Yandex Maps! Please stop bringing Google up! WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Insisting that any part of the various Google articles be modified if anything happens to this precious piece is not going to convince anyone to change their !vote. That's why not. KDS4444 ^(talk) 23:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally notable. Mjbmr (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Yandex. The company is notable, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage on these, however, to show that each is notable in themselves. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Javaheri[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. I couldn't find any indication that the subject meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG at this time, though I'd be happy to be proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has a claim for notability for expertise in a scholarly area, but her 6 books listed in WorldCat each have only single-digit holdings (actually the maximum is just 2), so TOOSOON seems to be a fitting description. Agricola44 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few sources, with added language barriers. Not enough here to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator due to sources being presented. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Rider: The Game[edit]

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

Non notable video game that was already prodded before. Fails WP:GNG for notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Metacritic lists 6 'critic reviews' at least some of which are recognized sources ([11]). --Michig (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I must have totally missed that. On second review it appears notable, so I will withdraw this AfD nomination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:G12. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian conquest of the Horn of Africa[edit]

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

This page is clearly a WP:SYNTH amalgamation of three historical topics: Italian Somaliland (it should be noted that this territory wasn't "conquered" by Fascist Italy, as this article suggests), Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and Italian conquest of British Somaliland. These articles are already well developed. This one covers no new scope and is therefore redundant. Indy beetle (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I have tagged it as a copyvio; even though the infobox and “See also” seem legit, the entire body is an extremely light paraphrase of a passage from Historical Dictionary of Somalia, p.124f. Commenting here in case the ‘furniture’ is considered to be valid content that disqualifies the article from CSD-G12.—Odysseus 1479 04:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nom states, this is a POV fork. So long as Wikipedia serves as an open field for cranks to write the narrative they prefer, we'll be inundated such material. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I dont't think it could be of any use for uor readers.--Pampuco (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordia Lee Witter[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC the artist seem to have only appeared on one recording and a search on only throws up a few puff pieces and passing mentions claiming that she is "an up and coming star" or "budding singer" there is no proof that she budded or arrived anywhere, certainly not enough to meet WP:NMUSIC and she fails WP:GNG in my opinion. She is known for being married to Jon Baker (producer) and that is about it. Domdeparis (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG in my opinion. A quick search returned many results. The article has got sufficient references (unreferences section can be removed). Cotshea (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2017(UTC)— Cotshea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not the number of results that is important but what is in them. Can you maybe tell us which results prove notability? Domdeparis (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that if it gets massive results, it becomes notable directly. You first speedied the article and now an AfD. Please help me get more references. The article should be improved instead of deletion. There are many News article, I myself created hte article and there are also Jamiacan media channels covering the artist. Cotshea (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new references. Please check the article now and reconsider your decision. Cotshea (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources and most of them are home pages for the things that you have mentioned in the article and just listing the people she has met doesn't make her notable by association so saying that she met Dale Virgo and adding the Diztroy home page to the article doesn't help at all to prove notability. None of the sources that you have added mention her. Youtube videos do very little to prove notability either even the interview such as the one with mdtv which is a local cable station in Spanish Town and doesn't seem to have any web presence so not what you could call a reliable source. I'm sorry but there is nothing there that proves notability. I've looked and I can't find anything more so no I'm afraid I can't help. Can you say specifically which sources mention her and help to prove notability? Domdeparis (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 00:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KioWare[edit]

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

Article is promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References added to American Libraries Magazine article and a book about Android kiosks in libraries. Lboniello (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References fail as PRIMARY and not independent, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This software and article is notable. There are multiple primary,secondary, (and independent) sources in kiosk industry journals. This is a niche industry and a often discussed software within the industry. Kiosk industry leaders include Craig Keefner, James Kruper, and Frank Olea. Kioskindustry.org, Kioskmarketplace.com and Kiosk Solutions Magazine are the leading relevant industry publications. Lboniello talk

Hi Lboniello, you haven't yet clearly indicated if you are !voting to Keep or Delete (although I assume the former). Just put a bold "Keep" or "Delete" in front of your comment. Also, PRIMARY sources are not acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. If there are any references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post links here or post book/page references - anything that we can use to check them out. Thank you. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! HighKing - done. Lboniello talk

Keep:As lockdown kiosk software goes which secures devices and ports at a hardware level, the overwhelming majority of deployed solutions are KioWare, Provisio and Microsoft (assigned access is latest iteration). Has been since 2005. Frost and Sullivan and other research firms can be audited for supporting numbers. There were other pre-2000 but they went away. Netkey was one but more than secure software. I see Netkey has a page on Wikipedia. Link modified to NCR. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigcatareno (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have started to scrub this article's citations and provide better ones. I think it is okay as a stub now. I can add more as well, but need a bit more time. Please advise. -- Erika aka ̴̴̴̴BrillLyle (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked at the references in the article. This first reference is a magazine and includes a 4 question "interview" with a customer in a section of the magazine that states "To have a new product considered for this section, contact ..." so clearly it is a section where a vendor places an article. Also, the responses from the "customer" have been written by a marketing department. Fails WP:ORGIND. This digitalsignagetoday.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement in relation to a new release of software. Similarly, the next digitalsignagetoday.com article is based on another announcement in relation to a software update and fails WP:ORGIND. This article in kioskmarketplace.com clearly states that it is quoting from a KioWare case study (which is available on their website) and is therefore not intellectually independent, provides no independent opinion or analysis and fails WP:ORGIND. This article from rfidjournal is based on PR from a partner, Precision Dynamics Corp and therefore also fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This digitaljournal.com article fails for the same reason (even states at the top its a Press Release). This third article from kioskmarketplace.com is written by Laura Miller - director of marketing for KioWare! Therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This cpbj.com article is based on an interview with the same Laura Miller with no independent opinion or analysis and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This article in aviationpros.com fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention-in-passing that KioWare will design the software for a kiosk. This article is a case study from CreditCall and is not intellectually independent (case studies rarely, if ever, are) and fails WP:ORGIND. This book reference mentions KioWare in a list of kiosk software providers and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This next digitalsignagetoday.com article is again based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this kiosksolutionsmagazine article is another company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. For those !voters that !voted Keep, I understand this is a niche area, but the references to date only prove that KioWare has some sort of functioning marketing/PR department and none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- While I appreciate the critical eye taken in the above comment, I do think that this company deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia. And although the entries are not perfect, they are adequate for a stub entry. This is a niche industry that I personally know little to nothing about, but I don't think that the entry is a bad entry necessarily. Wikipedia does a pretty bad job of covering business / organization entries, and this is probably not that different than the majority of them. I personally would like to see the entry improved, but I sort of object on principle that it should be deleted. I disagree with deleting. The article should be improved, not deleted. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 00:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not seem to pass our general notability criteria, as the sources that mention this company do not go into detail about it. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing's analysis of current sources, and my failure to find better ones. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagina Group[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any news articles with non-trivial coverage. I created this in 2006 while removing irrelevant information from Nagina. utcursch | talk 13:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Ngrewal1's edits. The article still needs more in-depth sources, but one of the sources describes the organization as "one of the oldest textile groups in the country", which indicates some notability. utcursch | talk 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nagina Group of companies is a major textile producer and exporter of textiles from Pakistan. The Group's textile subsidiary company Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited is traded on the Karachi Stock Exchange. An article by a major business newspaper of Pakistan Business Recorder verifies this information and its reference is included in my given references. Redid the Nagina Group article today with references from 3 major newspapers of Pakistan which had in-depth news coverage.Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the references are run-of-the-mill business or company announcement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This dawn.com reference fails since the only piece related to the company is entirely based on an interview with the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This brecorder.com reference is borderline but since it fails to attribute a journalist it fails the criteria for a reliable source. It is also questionable if there is any real independent analysis and/or opinion in this article. At this point in time, my !vote is to delete but I'll check back to see if more references can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, and notable based on the fact that it is stock exchange listed. Mar4d (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Automotive[edit]

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

Short lived company with no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pakistani affiliate of General Motors [12] Also, the company appears to have been revived [13] as it manufactures Chevrolet vehicles in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited so I don't believe in this point that it is affilate of GM so it is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearpaw (footwear)[edit]

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

No enduring notability. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a company listing site or the Yellow Pages. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NOTDIR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable brand of footwear, with various sources found. [14], [15], opening of their first store: [16], interview with founder: [17], the founder in hot water: "Sacramento Area Businessman Charged With Evading $5.6M In Customs Duties On Footwear Imported From China" Tinton5 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually this satisfies GNG pretty nicely. Tinton5 shows there's significant coverage in reliable independent sources. That's enough in this case to keep the article. Also, nom's rationale that the notibility is not enduring seems to be just made up. Enduring notability is not a thing on WP. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is not a single claim in that article that the brand or the company is anything special. The article is just a blatant company listing. In its current cast, no arguments for 'keep' can possibly be in line with notability guidelines, and promotion/advertising are against policy. The only reliable source provided by Tinton5 is the U.S. Attorneys Eastern District of California reporting on the import of shoes from China under fake invoices to evade millions of $$ of US import taxes, but the mention is missing in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Reference listed by Tinton5 fail the criteria for establishing notability as follows: this footwearnews.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based substantially on this PR from the company, same quotes too, and is therefore also a PRIMARY source with no independent opinion/analysis. This prweb reference is a Press Release and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not an independent secondary source. This bizjournals.com article also fails WP:ORGIND as it is also based on a company announcement and is also therefore is not intellectually independent and fails the criteria for establishing notability. The interview in footwearplusmagazine.com fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is entirely based on an interview/quotes from the CEO with no independent opinion/analysis and is also therefore a PRIMARY source. Finally, the article on fraud only mentions this company in passing. If the topic of this article was the CEO, this would arguably help to establish his notability. Notability is not inherited. This article is only a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything I can find is either a trivial notice or a press release--conveniently, the press releases are so marked, there's not even an advertorial pseudo-news item. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although quite surprising given they are behind Ugg boots, I too conclude that there's not enough here (or out there) to demonstrate notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an directory listing on an unremarkable brand; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sundeep Bhutoria[edit]

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

Most sources are PR based or primary. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AvaTrade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Not individually notable from other companies of the same type, and as such violates WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contains references which pass GNG. - Mar11 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about CORPDEPTH? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree there are enough references to pass GNG. Sargdub (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SamHolt6. It's almost all press releases. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there are a good number of references, most seem to be press releases, and there really aren't enough of them, which means that we can't properly verify the information. Also, the article is slightly promotional. This contributes to my vote of delete. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Trax[edit]

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

Article was created by author without fulfilling notability about video games Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because as the article currently stands, when I created it as such, the article contained little to no notability, which puts it at risk for deletion, however, if someone can find multiple credible sources that highlight gameplay, trivia, and reviews, then it's highly plausible to let the article live. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Mobygames is any indication, it's a highly notable game, just poorly sourced in the article. You should be able to access the sources by clicking on the relevant reviews in Mobygames and pressing view review._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rationale: The nominator withdrew the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommended that the page be deleted or redirected. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jugular Street Luge Racing[edit]

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

Article was created by me without proper adherence to WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You are confusing adhering to WP:GNG with properly sourcing your article. It was notable, but not properly sourced. Unsourced non biographical articles that are notable can still remain on Wikipedia. Therefore there is no real reason to delete, it can stay on as a stub._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't say that this was unsourced, but that it does not comply with WP:GNG, which requires the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What such sources have you found? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the Mobygames page, there are a number of reviews by various magazines, all of which are reliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They may be reliable, but they don't appear to provide significant coverage, with 2, 2, 3 and 6 sentences. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Zxcvbnm, those reviews, albeit short, could all be cited and added to a newly created reception section with table of scores. But, expansion with cited gameplay and other trivia needs to be found. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dizzy Up the Girl. The redirect may however be changed at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Play[edit]

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

Non-notable EP. I tried looking for sources on Google, but all I could find were store links and unrelated news articles. There's no mention of this EP on AllMusic either. DBZFan30 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goo Goo Dolls, or possibly Dizzy Up the Girl. This is simply a promotional compilation of the first four singles from the Dizzy Up the Girl album – if you look at the Discogs source that is the only reference in the article, it says so on the sleeve and on the CD. As it was only a promotional EP and never intended for sale, there won't be any reviews or sources about it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dizzy Up the GirlI, which is the more specific topic. Nothing in searches to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Fails GNG for standalaone. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darinka Montico[edit]

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

Non notable CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find reliable sources covering her. Jdcomix (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:An article by the same WP:SPA was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia as non-encyclopedic or promotional which could also be said of this instance. I don't think the brief item in La Stampa or the self-written item in La Repubblica Lifestyle about her walk are evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Market Music (album). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue American[edit]

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

Independent notability cannot be established (not enough credible sources to warrant notability). Lockytas (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Black Market Music (album): the song isn't notable outside of the album, and half the current article is OR – the one sourced quote could easily be included in the "Composition" section in the album's article, particularly as the source also discusses themes for other tracks on the same album. Richard3120 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Content could be merged into album page, but nothing on the page indicates the song's notability. I would change my vote if more evidence of notability was added in the near future. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable album track. Merge info or not. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 00:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Not notable on its own. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 03:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheollima Civil Defense[edit]

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

1. There is only one source. 2. Too much content needs to be verified.

"Proof of this is beyond rare and no real findings have proved the legitimacy of this multi-national "rescue group" claim, and once more, many in the Western European intelligence agencies as well as the US/ROK's joint entities, feel such a concept seems ridiculous, even to the casual observer. Numerous sources have corroborated that it would not need four nations to assist Kim Jong-Nam's family and son, who's video is really "the only proof", as several US NSA/CIA analysts have said, to back up the other narrative. "In fact, there would be so nothing to gain for the US to dedicate personnel, aircraft, fuel, assets on the ground, etc...All just to repatriate a handful of defectors unless some type of espionage operation would be in action, and even then, there are so many other avenues to accomplish that very objective that require ten times less the amount of resources and, more importantly, geopolitical risk" the sources inside the US Joint Special Operations Command and CIA said sternly when asked about the group." 3. This paragraph is almost a comment. O1lI0 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself implies that the organization is a WP:HOAX and sources do not support coverage as a hoax. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable hoax. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Holtzman-1998-03-30-1] Holtzman, Phyllis (March 30, 1998). "Penn offers cash incentive to increase home ownership in University City". Penn News. Archived from the original on 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2017-09-23.

[Moskowitz-2014-12-31-2] Moskowitz, Peter (December 31, 2014). "Philadelphia universities' expansion drove wider gentrification, tension". Al Jazeera America. Archived from the original on 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2017-09-23.

[Webb-2013-07-11-3] Webb, Molly (July 11, 2013). "The long and troubling history of Penntrification in West Philly". Curbed Philadelphia. Archived from the original on 2017-01-29. Retrieved 2017-09-23.

[1]

[2]

[3]