Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 August	17 August >

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Carrion[edit]

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

Article was prodded for deletion in June 22, 2017, subsequently deleted and then restored a year later after this deprod request made by an IP claiming to be Sasha Carrion herself. When I noticed the deprod, I tried to clean things up a bit a find some better sources per WP:BEFORE; however, I haven't really been able to find the kind of WP:SIGCOV that is usually required to meet WP:BIO. It's certain that Carrion has appeared on a number of TV/radio programs as a guest expert, but I don't believe just that makes her Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article. I also asked about this at WT:BIOGRAPHY#Sasha Carrion, where AfD was suggested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by GNG, and can't think of any special subject-specific guidelines (like WP:ATH) that might apply. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find sources in some large newspapers and couldn't. Appears to fail WP:NBIO. The current sources used in the article are primary or in-universe. —Paleo Neonate – 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good rule of thumb I preach is that when you are dealing with someone "famous" in the era of the Internet and you can't find enough resources to prove notability within a 20-minute Google search, then they aren't notable. Even if there were notable print citations, they would be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. Don't spend your precious time trying to find the unfindable. Sgerbic (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources, noting that though several TV and radio show appearances could be verified, those sources fall under primary sources and are not sufficient to assert notability. Reliable secondary sources are thus far elusive. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is one indepth article, but it is only one, and it is only available from the subject's own site, even though there it is claimed to have been published in multiple newspapers. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of detailed WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions in few articles does not meet WP:GNG--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While he might fail WP:MMABIO, there is no consensus whether he also fails WP:GNG, with delete !voters mostly only citing the former and not discussing the later. Any new nomination has to take into account that subjects can be notable even if they fail WP:MMABIO. So Why 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Belingon[edit]

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in tier one promotion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of ONE Championship - it may not be the UFC, but it's a pretty significant east-Asian tournament. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simonm223 Subject fails Wikipedia MMA fighter notability guidelines - see WP:MMABIO. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I certainly note that this is your interpretation as the nominator. I disagree with your interpretation. However I have said my piece and don't feel like debating here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simonm223, It is not my interpretation, it is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts guidelines for MMA fighter unde Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability - see WP:MMABIO that only fighters have fought 3 fights under tier one promotion (UFC or Invicta - see WP:MMATIER). Kindly refer to the links for your perusal. Thank you. 13:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete Clearly fails to meet the long established notability criteria for MMA fighers at WP:NMMA. No evidence is given that he's a notable martial artist (see WP:MANOTE). The routine coverage of his MMA fights does not show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the article, at its current state, pass WP:GNG? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article meets WP:GNG and my reasoning is below the next comment. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone somehow writes an article that passes WP:GNG, would that be enough? For example, if you can write an article about this person using this source, which, should more than enough satisfy WP:GNG, would that be good enough? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about an article promoting his next fight and possible future fight in his drive to a second tier MMA title. I don't think it's enough to meet WP:GNG, but every editor needs to make his own decision. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "promoting his next fight and possible future fight" be a gross oversimplification of that article though. I mean, it's extensive enough that I can use that entire article as five or more references in this article. I'd put this in a category of a full-fledged article about this person, not some routing coverage of his next fight, and perhaps a prospective fight in the future that may or may not happen. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick web search shows he meets the WP:GNG with non-trivial coverage in quite a few independent big name news sources. ABS-CBN "ONE: Kevin Belingon frustrates Martin Nguyen to become interim champion"; BusinessWorld "Kevin Belingon all in for ‘biggest bout’ of career"; The Philippine Star "Belingon itching for Bibiano rematch: 'There's no escaping me'; GMA Network "I can take Nguyen's right hand, knew his game plan – Kevin Belingon". --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are routine sports reporting of results and pre-fight promotion for a second tier promotion's title fight. The article's sources are basically the type of coverage given to professional MMA fights all over the world. When this article was previously deleted he was the champion of a second tier MMA promotion and he still is, but he has yet to fight at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then "routine" is a pretty high level of coverage, that meets the WP:GNG. There are captains of industry that would be thrilled to have this many articles about them. We've got hundreds of articles about association football players and Olympic medalists without nearly this much coverage. --GRuban (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Man I don't get it, why do people here in wikipedia consider ONE Championship a second tier promotion where in fact it's the BIGGEST MMA promotions in ASIA.^[1] I think the real debate here is not Belingon but i think it's on the side of ONE Championship. I have read some of the arguments against ONE Promotions, and its only 1 thing and that is they lack on well-known and highly rank fighters. Kevin Belingon is a well-known fighter because of multiple media publications about him. But not a Top rated Fighter according to many MMA rankings because he fights on an outside western country promotions if he fights on UFC he will be easily on the Top 10 no doubt about it.

But currently there is NO independent MMA Rankings which covers all the MMA fighters around the globe and I would love to hear about it(if there's any), and we all know that there is NO independent World MMA Title to Fight on unlike Boxing were 4 independent organizations offer world championship titles. Any rich businessmen can create there own MMA promotions and get several high tier fighters, Top Rank for example can create a MMA promotions and MMA Title with the right MONEY to lure high ranking MMA fighters from multiple ranking publications to come to them, even Super Star Mayweather can create his own too. So I think that this should not be a standard basis of considering what Top tier MMA Promotions are, I think we should add the most important of all (Cultural and Influential Impact of the Organization for the Sport like "What did the promotion contributed to the MMA?","How did the organization help the fighters?","Did it improve the MMA scene in the region?","Did the MMA Promotion influence the economic, political and cultural identity of society on its region?) and so on. (i hope i'm making sense on this but yah.)

And ONE Championship has already made HISTORY not just here in the South East Asia and ASIA but the whole world, it has a large pool of fan base bigger than other top tier mma promotions, the GLOBAL media outlets are talking about ONE MMA, fight fans around the globe known ONE Championship, MMA is flourishing in South East Asia because of ONE Championship., and maybe they the ONE Championship will revamp the dying Japan MMA scene. ONE MMA has molded the future generations of MMA practitioners in Asia generally speaking, ONE has built the foundation of what might happen next on the promotions of MMA (like: show casing different martial arts in 1 fight card, (Grappling Only Match-up, Kick Boxing Muay Thai and now Boxing). and yet people disregard ONE MMA promotions as if it only exist in an unknown part of the world. They made several events on several countries and distributed it to influenced an estimate 1.7 billion people around the globe. And it's on business after 7 years and many more to come. You can't disregard someones achievement because he just fought on so called 2nd tier organization, even if the fights fans knows who is he, where he fights and who is he fighting. I believe this are the basis of why I firmly nominate ONE Championship to be promoted to Top Tier Organization and even if i fail to convince you my fellow Wikipedians on this one. ONE Championship and the people who supported it, have already made a significant mark on the global sports landscape. (English is not my first language, my deepest apologies on my mistakes and if you guys need sources, i will provide it later on but for now sorry)Dragonxtx (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about the notability of MMA organizations has been discussed in dozens, if not hundreds, of threads going back nearly a decade and they can be found in the archives at WT:MMA and WT:MMANOT. To summarize, an organization's notability is essentially based on how many world top 10 fighters they have (and they should be spread across the different weight classes). By consensus, the rankings at sherdog.com are used and there's been a belief that to be considered among the best you must fight the best, which is why MMA fighter notability is based on appearing in organizations that have the top fighters. I can tell you that reaching a consensus for MMA notability involved a lot of heated and sometimes nasty discussions. I just looked at the rankings for bantamweights and no one from One FC was listed, although Kyoji Horiguchi from Rizin is ranked 8th. It may also be worth considering (as an indicator of ONE's strength) that Belingnon has only 1 victory over a WP notable fighter and that was in Koetsu Okazaki's last fight (in other words a fighter not in his prime). Papaursa (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the MMA method of determining who gets automatic notability, because after all this is what it is (other sports do the same). Those who do not qualify are not automatically disqualified for an article, as long as the article passes WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er: "an organization's notability is essentially based on how many world top 10 fighters they have... By consensus, the rankings at sherdog.com are used..." What? You are arguing that our Notability guideline is based on a list maintained at a minor commercial web site? No. Just no. --GRuban (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that effectively out-sourcing our notability guidelines for a sport to Sherdog is not the best idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty standard over the years for combat sports including boxing and kickboxing.PRehse (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a thing has been done a certain way is not a reason to keep doing it that way. That said I think this is not the appropriate venue to debate the merits of overall project notability guidelines so I'll shut up on this now. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it appears he fails the guidelines under WP:MMABIO, he seems more than referenced enough for WP:GNG. The WP:MMABIO may need revision or discussion, but this is not the forum for that. Ifnord (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the basis of our conversations about revisions to WP:MMABIO I've started this thread to talk about that issue, linking it back to this AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SALT. Per the discussion here, the page Rayge DeMarco has also been salted to block recreation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond DeMarco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Third creation of an article previously deleted twice at Rayge DeMarco (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayge DeMarco (2nd nomination)), Mr. DeMarco's professional name as a musician. Those articles were speedily deleted, due to a complete lack of verifiable sources – the current recreation omits Mr. DeMarco's entirely non-notable musical career, but reinstates his supposed hockey career, using a different source. However, an inspection of the "Hockey Database" website cited as a reference shows that it is in fact a single page created on a Weebly blog-hosting site, and there are no other entries in the "database" – in other words, it's fake. As stated in the previous AfD for Rayge DeMarco, Mr. DeMarco's supposed hockey career consisted of playing for two teams in a minor professional hockey league, but a search on HockeyDB.com (a genuine database of hockey players) shows that his name does not appear on it. In short, the whole article appears to be fake, and given its history, salting may be required for various permutations of the name. Article was created by an editor now banned for using multiple sock accounts. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not a notable athlete (and is also not a notable musician). I did a careful Google search. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Searches turned up zero to show notability in any category, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if the claim to notability is fake and completely unsupported in any way, then delete with extreme prejudice. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Article may be a hoax based on research by Richard3120 and the fact that he's not mentioned among the nearly 637,000 hockey players listed at eliteprospects.com . Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Papaursa writes. Couldn't find reliable source articles about him. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. A WP:BEFORE found not reference. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NHOCKEY and source provided probably a fault web site. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY due to the clear lack of sources talking about the subject in great detail. possible WP:VANISPAM--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4. Ifnord (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No policy-based ratiionale was presented by those arguing for keep or merge SpinningSpark 17:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly of Evil[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, and is too minor to merge (according to Marvel Wikia this team appears twice). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not discussed by secondary sources. Within the fiction, the group only appear in two issues of one series. The summary for that series name drops the group without context. Nothing would be lost by deleting this, but if it's redirected/merged, it should go to Cloak and Dagger (comics), since that's where they're relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Argento. Not every character and group that has appeared needs to be mentioned in a list here, and certainly not in it's own article. Clear failure of GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FANCRUFT which fails WP:GNG for lack of any type of referencing, either in article or elsewhere. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No independent coverage, does not seem to be particularly important fictional group. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Completely non-notable on its own but enough material in there to be able to save at List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Ifnord (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. There is strong consensus here that this subject is not independently notable. Once content has been merged, the article itself could probably be deleted under CSD#G6, or redirected if editors feel it is a reasonable search term. Vanamonde (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death Squad (comics)[edit]

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

The groups don't meet WP:GNG, and are not notable enough to merge. The main group only appears twice according to Marvel Wikia; the Black Lama squad appears once, and the Magus squad doesn't even appear to have a Wikia page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An insignificant part of the fiction that has no reliable outside sources. The few pages that link to this group can provide adequate context inline. Nothing would be lost by deleting the content, and nothing would be helped by merging it to another target. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Argento. Not every character and group that has appeared needs to be mentioned in a list here, and certainly not in it's own article. Clear failure of GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. Hard term to search for, but seemingly no independent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Completely non-notable on its own but enough material in there to be able to save at List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Made his professional debut today against De Graafschap (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arijanet Muric[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userify Slightly WP:TOOSOON and a poorly sourced BLP at the moment - we will see if he features on Sunday, since he could debut very shortly. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Can be restored if/when he is notable. Giant Snowman 10:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Dutch league has just started, if his makes he debut, keep under WP:NFOOTBALL, however till then he should be in draft space. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY. Meets the professional standard. WP:GNG as well, but the professional standard is even more convincing. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Gidonb, You've been around long enough to understand these Notability guidelines, you're keep argument is floored. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy: WP:NFOOTY applies in 7 days. The GNG applies right now. Can't tell if it is my WP longevity but I do miss the point of this nomination! ;-) gidonb (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep player now passes WP:NFOOTY, having played a professional match after the launch of this AFD. OZOO (t) (c) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Industries[edit]

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

This article on a company has been without sources for the preceding 14 years. A BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, and newspapers.com fails to locate any. Fails GNG. ("Adams Industries" appears to be an incredibly common name that is used by a large number of extant industries right now as well.) Chetsford (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given above. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 22:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and above, fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching is hard, as described, does not seem to be related to the more notable Adam Aircraft Industries, couldn't find indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adams-Toman[edit]

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

This article on a company has been without sources for the preceding 14 years. A BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, and newspapers.com fails to locate any. Fails GNG. (In principal, have no problem with Draftify if someone were to want to take ownership of sourcing it.) Chetsford (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this directory from 1929 proves it existed, but probably isn't enough for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP. Proof of existance does not equal notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and above, fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, couldn't find indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by admin Athaenara. Reason:WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Phillips[edit]

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

Possible fails WP:BIO. A recent Google search brought up nothing on the person. I think he might just be famous for one event. In addition, the references in the article are possibily not reliable. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WillPhillllllips (talk · contribs) had made a couple of edits to the page. User name suggests they are editing their own article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Article tagged with WP:A7 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person is only known for a single event. Notability has not been established. Could not find anything in Google about this person either. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buriel Clay Theater[edit]

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

Non-notable theater created by a upe sock. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like the sort of topic which would be notable. It has been around for awhile (since the 1980s as far as I can verify), but I don't really think that makes it "historical" as the article claims. Otherwise, I'm having a hard time finding in-depth coverage about this, even from local San-Francisco sources. According to the article African-American Shakespeare Company the theater is inside a city-owned complex, so the theater structure itself is highly unlikely to be or become notable. Creator is not identified as a sock, but certainly UPE is involved. I can't find notability here by any definition, despite searching for sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a theatre company would usually be notable I think. What is “UPE”? —Doncram (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure “usually notable”?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~That reply seems kind of unfriendly, unnecessarily.~~ Sorry I can’t format better from my current device. What is a “upe sock” please? If there is a sockpuppet report or other evidence about what that is, could someone please link? —Doncram (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth was unfriendly about my question? I am on a mobile device and responded as efficiently as possible. UPE is easy to put into the search bar but it means undisclosed paid editing, so with that being said can you please explain what policy guideline or outcome supports such a statment as a “a theater company would usually be notable?”CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPE is easy to put into the search bar but that doesn't help; there is no definition of "UPE" and no mention of "undisclosed paid editing" [at] wp:UPE, which I had looked up already. The best guess (which I knew didn't make sense) I could make beforehand was that it stood for unpaid editing. Thank you for answering what it stands for, to you and perhaps to some others; if it is not defined I think the term should be avoided.

Anyhow there is no evidence here in this AFD or at the article Talk page that there was any paid editing here, and frankly I highly doubt that someone was paid for this page. I removed the negative tag about this from the article. Further at the editor's Talk page I see that they have been blocked with accusation of possibly engaging in paid editing, though I see no real evidence there either. I see the editor created a couple pages about musicians that might have involved copyvios, but there is nothing wrong apparent here.

About demand made that I explain myself, I was basically agreeing with User:78.26 who stated "this seems like the sort of topic which would be notable." African-American Shakespeare Company as a company is notable; I am very aware that historic theatre spaces/buildings are very often notable and listed on the National Register of Historic Places because of their importance to their communities (not saying this one is listed). The term "MAD" in the deletion nominator's chosen username suggests anger, and the AFD itself is a demand that others pay attention, and the nomination seems grounded in anger about paid editing without evidence. In this context then not answering a question about jargon used in the nomination and making a different demand upon the questioner (me) instead, comes across as angry to me. I hope this helps User:Chrissymad understand where I was coming from in reacting to their comment which I found inappropriate. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mad is part of my actual name, so your insinuation that it is any indication of my state of mind is nothing more than an egregious personal attack and I expect an apology. You need to stick to the topic at hand instead of pontificating a good faith users motivation based on a policy abiding username. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish. I gave you the courtesy of explaining part of how your editing rubbed me the wrong way; there is no personal attack in that. You could simply acknowledge being wrong that "UPE" is defined anywhere obvious in Wikipedia. And you could acknowledge that there is no evidence this article was created by paid editing. Even if it was, it is a notable topic. And you might consider whether making silly demands comes across as angry or not. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on with the attacks then. I am under no obligation to have regard for your feelings over a perfectly acceptable and normal response. You however are obligated to follow WP:CIVILITY as am I. My responses to you have been nothing but civil and yet you've attacked editors repeatedly over something you don't seem to understand. If you don't believe it was paid editing, ask the blocking administrator instead of accusing myself and another good faith editor of slander. I'll keep waiting for your apology for a blatant personal attack too. As far as UPE being obvious, you could have, I don't know, clicked the tag? Typed it into the search box? You have 150k edits, you're not new at this.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The attack in question was the username comment, as she said. If you think there is something wrong with her username, it belongs on the appropriate page, not here. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the term UPE is in fact defined in the section that WP:UPE redirects to. "Paid editing without such a declaration is referred to as Undeclared Paid Editing (UPE)". This text has been present since 20 June 2018. Chrissymad could have linked it in the nomination, but once one has searched for it there is no excuse for not knowing what it means. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad for not finding that text when I looked there first and again when I looked again later. Funny that Chrissymad was wrong in exactly what UPE means; when I returned there I think I might have searched on "undisclosed" there found nothing. It is a bit buried. Offhand it could be formatted better to make it more visible, and wp:UPE could be more specifically redirected to an {{anchor}} at the exact definition.

But, rubbish rubbish rubbish about a personal attack in my statement that "The term "MAD" in the deletion nominator's chosen username suggests anger....". It does suggest that to me, and I bet it has suggested that to other editors ChrissyMAD has been in conflict with, although perhaps they are unaware of it. As if names have no importance in suggesting anything; please tell that to advertisers paying trillions of dollars for brands. It is not just "mad" in their name, it is MAD in angry bolded shouting. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram. You cannot judge the merits of one's opinions in an AfD off their username. If someone commented here with a pink signature 50px by 50px featuring a giant unicorn, you should not write off their opinions as immature, nor attack them for this. The "MAD" is capitalized as her entire username is capitalized, and the bold has nothing to do with anger. To quote from WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Vermont (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I am striking comments of mine above, which I have been criticized for, and about which I agree at least that they were off-topic relative to the merits of the article in question in this AFD. I was asked elsewhere to delete some or all of my comments, but that would make the others' comments look out of place and I think that is generally not wanted. Perhaps someone could simply collapse this thread as off-topic. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find indepth coverage, it all seems to be "here is the current play", nothing about the theatre itself. --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although probably move to African American Arts & Culture Complex and develop further. This is one of the theatres in that complex. Assuming this is about a somewhat historic, somewhat prominent theatre space, I would be glad for this to be kept outright if any more direct sourcing can be found. It is useful to define whom the place is named for, and I believe it is common for readers to look up information about theatre venues in Wikipedia. It is a theatre venue and/or a theatre company; we routinely have coverage of large and historical venues (although it is debatable whether this one is large enough or historical enough); and there is an obvious good alternative to redirection (which would be redirect/merge if African American Arts & Culture Complex already existed, but that is a redlink currently, so move and develop to be about the entire complex instead). The complex is larger and more obviously notable; it is a bigger public attraction (e.g. listed as a travel destination in TripAdvisor). Per wp:ATD we are obligated to seek alternatives, here is a good one. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could see supporting that, but I did a search and couldn't find very much about the AAA&CC either, unfortunately. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any significant coverage. It may be more likely that an Buriel Clay is notable, but this theatre does not appear to be. MB 02:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have developed the article somewhat, and revised it to be about the larger complex, preparing for move after this AFD is closed. It was already about that, in that it did include the "African American Arts & Culture Complex" name in bold. It includes dance spaces, the Sargent Johnson Gallery, a multi-use space, a conference room, and more. It seems to be a community center founded in 1989 which is no doubt significant in its neighborhood. I added a source or two more; there are more available. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per everyone (mostly). Vermont (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything to convince me it meets notability guidelines, nor is there significant coverage. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 20:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing that it is notable. Only a small amount of local coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references aren't about the venue but the different events held there. A movie or play may be notable but the local theatre where you see it isn't. Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there are a few opinions for delete, the overwhelming general consensus seems to be for keep. (non-admin closure) IWantGears5 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfolk[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Article on a commercial product (a series of two game instructions booklets) has three references, two of which do not actually mention the product at all and are probably not RS even if they did, and the third of which is merely its name listed on a tiny game awards website (see below). Additional background follows:

BEFORE search: The standard BEFORE search (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) finds no RS to the following search strings: (hillfolk AND RPG) OR (hillfolk AND game) OR (hillfolk AND "Robin Laws") except for this brief mention in a holiday gift list round-up on WUVM-FM radio [1].
Note on awards: The article claims the game won two awards, however: (1) we do not have an inherent notability criteria for commercial products which have won awards but otherwise fail GNG, (2) these are very tiny, niche awards that, themselves, are probably so un-notable that they don't qualify for WP articles. While an award like the Origins Award might be impressive for a game, the "Indie RPG Awards" and "Diana Jones Award" would realistically be the game industry's equivalent to the concrete industry's Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design [2]; something that is a relevant achievement to only a tiny sub-section of the population.
Redirect / Merge not advised: Redirect or Merge should not be applied because the term "Hillfolk" is too common and is more likely to be used by visitors searching for unrelated, ethnographic/demographic articles such as Appalachian Americans than for info on a small game from 2013. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Diana Jones awards are notable even if the article needs a rewrite (the Indy RPG awards probably aren't). On the other hand as the awards committee is largely anonymous it is not provable that Robin Laws is not on the committee. The Diana Jones award link, now it's been fixed (and hasn't had a bot give a six year out of date link) also gives three paragraphs on the game. The nominator also clearly didn't bother checking the RPGamer link- yes, there is a single sentence at the link, but the single sentence says to click through to a seven paragraph article. (The Indy RPG Awards link is down). Neonchameleon (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are almost invariably insufficient to meet our standards of "significant coverage". A majority of the AfCs we're declining these days have two sources. Proof of life is not proof of notability. The Diana Jones awards are notable Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media. They are a niche sectional award like the aforementioned concrete industry award. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are multiple independent sources, and the sources in question provide in-depth information rather than being single line mentions. Just because you're declining them on AfC doesn't mean that you are following Wp:N when doing so. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while on the subject it's just taken me all of 30 seconds to find an article specifically on the Diana Jones Award (rather than merely mentioning it in the context of something that won it) in Polygon. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in Polygon Like I said, "Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media." While the mention in Polygon may be fine for the article on the awards themselves, it fails as a demonstration of their wider societal importance to sustain one of their recipients. And, of course, this is aside from the fact that - unlike NFILM - we have no inherent notability standards for commercial products that permit them to overcome the GNG if they have received industry trophies like the Diana Jones Award (for the games industry) or the Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design (for the concrete industry). Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument here is that Polygon is a different industry. The Diana Jones award is for tabletop games, Polygon is for computer games. When the Alfred Lindell award gets write-ups in Interior Decorating magazines let me know - even if both are arguably about building houses. The other problem with your argument is that the Diana Jones award is reliable and does cover the award winners in non-trivial detail in a reliable manner so actually stands as a reliable source itself. (Arguably the solid paragraph for each nominee shortlisted is enough). Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also two sources are categorically enough for wp:NBOOK. RPGamer's one, the Diana Jones award is another. If Boz can dig up much in Designers & Dragons that will make a third. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three more, for a total of five. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neonchameleon. I will add Designers & Dragons to the article tomorrow, even though the nominator has argued against its use in other recent AFDS. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added Designers and Dragons along with two other RS: Geeknative and Le Maraudeur. The latter contains quite a bit of additional content in French that could be used to strengthen the article, but I have not had time to do that today. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Neonchameleon and User:Imminent77. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the nom has conceded that Designers & Dragons is reliable, and the discussion of Hillfolk is not trivial. The game has been extensively reviewed, received numerous awards, and is a clear GNG and NBOOK pass, even if it might fail NCEMENT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not seeing a huge amount of sourcing, but it has won a couple of awards. CAN i SEE SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH KEEP AND DELETE.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven - my argument for delete is that, even following the addition of sources, the article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources necessary to establish its notability and that mere evidence that something exists is not synonymous with notability. Specifically:

one of the sources (geeknative.com) [3] is a non-RS blog written by an individual guy,
another source is to a page for insurance quotes in Texas that doesn't actually mention the product at all [4],
one (Designers & Dragons) is essentially a compendium of every game ever created and while possibly factual doesn't contribute to notability in the same way we generally don't consider Publisher's Weekly reviews to do so (on the basis of the fact that they publish 10,000 per year),
This leaves just two sources that contribute to WP:N, both of which are on the margins of RS: the volunteer-run e-fanzine rpggamer.com, and a listing on the "Diana Jones Award" website (the "Diana Jones Award" is one of dozens of tiny awards in the game industry. It is awarded by an anonymous committee of as few as one person. From YouTube footage of its "awards ceremony" it appears it's given out in the bar area of a TGI Friday's in front of a crowd of 20-30 people [5] by a guy who just stands up on a table in the restaurant to announce the winners (AFAIK the guy standing on the table is the awards committee); this is not the indicator of a significant award that could transmute significance to its recipients)

Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will AGF, Chet, but you are simply incorrect. Designers and Dragons, as you would know if you had read it, is not a compendium but a history, organized by publisher and discussing trends and milestones in roleplaying over 40 years. The discussion of Hillfolk is far from a TRIVIALMENTION but is actually a substantial discussion of the role of the game in the trends of the 2000s, as you would would know if you had read the mention (or even the WP article you have sent to AfD. (Plenty of games so have passing mentions in Designers & Dragons, but Hillfolk is not one of them).

Geeknative is a respected site written by a journalist who has written professionally on RPGs for The Scotsman and Enworld, and is therefore a perfect example of the kind of self-published source that is in fact reliable.

Le Maraudeur is a professionally-published game magazine in French which offers an INDEPENDENT, multi-page review of Hilkfolk, which you did not mention, for some reason.

I have fixed the link for the Indie RPG awards.

And the Diana Jones award is given by a committee of (more than one) industry professionals, as you would know if you'd read the discussion in, you guessed it, Volume 4 of Designers and Dragons. So, based on your own count, Chet, we now have either four or five RS. Isn't it time to drop the stick? Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that Designers & Dragons is, sadly, not "a compendium of every game ever created"... too many times have I looked for games in there to add it as a source, and did not find them. :( BOZ (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep on basis of Diana Jones award; it may not be the Spiel de Jahres, but it's a significant enough award that a recipient of it should meet minimal notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the three RS I added today will help you sleep easy with your !vote, Simon. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this a) won an Indie RPG award and b) that this is being discounted as notable, which would be a mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link for that, too. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it sad that,thanks to my response to Chet's strategy of provocative posting, this may be my last AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source for that Diana Jones award states The games in Hillfolk, created by some of the finest designers working today (as well as, it must be admitted, some members of the Diana Jones Award Committee). --Imminent77 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. It seems to be an issue that the source is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, User:Imminent77: what source are you citing?~~ Nvm; found the link in the article; I was looking in the discussion here.

I know NOTINHERITED and all that, but since the game includes settings by a long list of giants in the industry, and since we don't need the DJA to meet WPN and NBOOK, I think if anything the status of the book as a kind of compilation album of industry greats enhances its status, frankly. The DJA is just icing. Newimpartial (talk)

Meh weak keep The Diane Jones award is notable but, as someone with a good deal of expertise in the RPG area and publishing, the game itself isn't particular notable inside that industry so it's not particularly so outside. It doesn't get a lot of press inside the industry. If we went by the WP:BAND band notability criteria as an example (bear with me), it has a notable author but even for bands it requires two independently notable members. I'm honestly on the fence on this one, it's far from a big name RPG line. I also agreed with Chetsford's comment on Designers and Dragons. Yes Designers and Dragons is a notable work. Yes it's a reliable source to source information. However I'd say it's not a source to claim the actual notability of a subject unless the book makes specific notability claims. Having just reread the section on Hillfolk, I agree there's nothing there to denote actual notability other than Shannon choose to write about it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In what sense does "The resulting game is very literary, focusing on themes, storybeats, and webs of relationships. It’s also the first Laws game that feels like it was directly influenced by the indie community ... When you put together those elements you have a pretty good overview of indie game mechanics in the ’00s. The most shocking aspect of Hillfolk (for traditional roleplayers at least) is the fact that it downplays what it calls “procedural” scenes, ..." (which is just the nub of the reference, not the whole discussion), placed in the major historical document of its field, not suggest Notability? All we need for NBOOK is two or three reviews, which we already have; given the pressures of space Applecline faced, his discussion of Hillfolk is at least worth a review. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The product reviews contain significant coverage which seems to be independent of the publisher. While the Dana Jones Award does not, in itself, establish notability it does give a solid marker for significance ie it shows that the reviews are likely not just 'we have to find some game to discuss in this issue' and greatly decreases the likelihood that the reviews are the result of native advertising or a publisher's PR campaign. The material that exists in the article is not, in my opinion, quite enough to demonstrate notability but, I think it likely that sufficient sources exist to get it past GNG. Jbh ^Talk 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won prominent industry award. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning the Diana Jones Award is no small feat. Agree with GRuban. Z359q (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Castillo[edit]

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

Violates Wikipedia:Verifiability as almost the entire article is unsourced. Also violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as there appears to be editorial bias and non-encyclopedic tone spread throughout the article in its entirety. Finally, the article is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research as this appears to have been told in a story format instead of an encyclopedia format without any sources which would indicate some original research. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:22, 16 August 2018 (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/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, there are problems aplenty with neutrality and sources, and it indeed strikes me as original research as well. Yet the subject itself is notable per WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6. The unsourced/unreliable stuff should be excised, but there are obituaries in Billboard and Rolling Stone so an acceptable article could be sourced to those. I think the solution is to first try to fix the article rather than delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of OR in the article that needs to go, but the subject is notable and there are enough sources to be able to create a decent article about him – there's also this article from Ultimate Classic Rock [6] and he's even had a documentary film made about his life which has played at international film festivals [7]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade. The lack of action is why I nominated this for deletion. Either someone needs to work on it and fix the major violations of policy or it needs deleted. The current article is unacceptable and to be honest I don't know how this is considered B class with the lack of in text references.Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figfires, that's a fair point about the B-class rating - it was done eleven years ago by Wizardman and maybe it's because in those days Wikipedia's rating standards were lower... I just wonder out of interest if he would rate it B-class now. If no-one else beats me to it I'll try and remove the OR next week and add some sources. Richard3120 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figfires "Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade" - couldn't agree more, but Wikipedia is chock full of that sort of thing and deleting an article because it's crap is not policy and would probably not gain consensus to be one, however worthwhile the argument is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Castillo is notable, but his page needs a lot of work. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources - and he's worked with the Prince of Fucking Darkness. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a classic case of WP:NEXIST, as the lack of sources currently in an article is not proof that the subject is non-notable; it's just proof that nobody added them yet. A WP:BEFORE search by the nominator would have easily revealed the sources located by the other voters above, indicating that the article needs to be cleaned up and improved, not deleted. Per WP:NEGLECT you don't have to wait for someone else to fix it then condemn it when they don't. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayda Award[edit]

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

Non-notable award.No non-trivial coverage (other than mere mentions of recipients, when they confer it) about the award. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award is notable and independent of subjects they are conferred. It is awarded by the Indian National Theatre. This award is covered by Trivedi, Ramesh. M. (2005) Gujarati Sahityano Itihaas. (History of Gujarati Literature). Ahmedabad: Adarsh Prakashan as referenced in the article which is book of history of literature (independent, non-trivial source). This award is also covered by several Gujarati sources but English references are scant because it is Gujarati literature award. -Nizil (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited.We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.News-tickers about a conferral in three-four lines or scant mentions in a book hardly passes that. Please provide sources, accordingly.......∯WBG^converse 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: FYI Gujarati sources are fine. Sources do not have to be in English. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indian National Theatre. I don't think the award itself merits a full article at this point because of the lack of notability (and apologies, but I can't really do a WP:BEFORE in Gujarati and claim to be able to understand it). That being said, if it is awarded by Indian National Theatre, which is for now can be presumed to be a notable subject unless it is challenged, surely it could be mentioned there and anything considered relevant could be brought over as an alternative to deletion. Then, if sources come to light and detailed notability worthy of an article's worth of content is established, an article could be recreated. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Zmarak Khan Mandokhail[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially for a living person, we need some indepth sources before we write an article. There aren't any here. --GRuban (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, he is a budding politician, nothing done so far is notable fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Even the BIO of his father appears to fail WP:NPOLITICIAN but I am not too sure due to his membership in Jirga of unknown importance.--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. editor request DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hassan Sherani[edit]

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

This subject was not elected to Provincial Assembly of the Balochistan, this fails to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I relied on these three sources (which all say he was the winner) when I created the article.[8],[9], [10] Recount might have changed the result as it was a small margin! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Election Commission has issued victory notification for Sardar Babar Khan Musakhel. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: Since the creation was based on an incorrect premise, might I suggest you and Saqib save everyone time and trouble by first tagging the article with WP:CSD#G7, and then closing this AfD when the page is deleted? Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems a rough consensus (post filtering out partial unsuited justifications) that the accident was of sufficient scale and provoked sufficient national reaction to warrant retention. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Kiryandongo bus accident[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply - no evidence of any lasting notability here. Giant Snowman 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks a lot like WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Basically everything on this subject is simply news reporting, but I concur there is nothing to establish notability other than it's a news event. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is poorly written and it needs re-editing. It is however notable just as 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire and 1999 Deutschlandsberg bus crash. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the other two are notable as well per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; they appear to have the same NOTNEWS issue as I look over them. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am inclined to agree with Red Phoenix ^talk. Whilst the above mentioned accidents are newsworthy, serious and saddening, they are not necessarily notable according as per WP:NOTNEWS. An example of notable, in my opinion, would be if the bus crash was the worst in the country's history, or the accident resulted in the greatest loss of life through vehicular accident in the country's history. This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the seriousness of the event or to offend anyone involved, but it must be appreciated that there are millions of accidents which result in the loss of life every day and the vast majority are not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The news outlets do the job of covering the ones that Wikipedia cannot. ThePastoral (talk)
Keep. I think the fact that the President of Uganda declared three days of mourning shows that this was an event of national significance and it has been covered in the international press (WP:EVENTCRIT#2). It's not just one of many daily accidents. If we had an article about Gaagaa Buses I might have suggested merging there and adding detail on their subsequent license revocation, which itself resulted resulted in strike threats, but we don't. Merging to Kiryandongo would overwhelm that article, so: keep, with no prejudice against a later merge. › Mortee _talk 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this has achieved the level of coverage required for WP:NEVENT. Another example of a recent, similar accident is the Humboldt Broncos bus crash. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Mortee, since it did receive international coverage from multiple sources which is WP:EVENTCRIT#2. Also would be happy to merge to a Gagaa Bus article if there were one - I did a search, and the company shows up in multiple crash articles from Uganda (most of which didn't achieve this level of international coverage). --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the international coverage it has recieved and per the fact the country is or had 3 days of mourning ... –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can we for one moment imagine that if 22 people died in a road accident in Britain or America we'd even be at AfD? Of course it's notable. And a clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Bangerter[edit]

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

Source searches for independent reliable sources are not providing any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Some primary sources are found, but those are not usable to establish notability. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any additional secondary sources, so perhaps deletion is appropriate here.Dig _deeper ^talk 14:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I could find is a profile at his law firm which is not independent. No significant in depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also could not find any sources that would support any form of notability. Finnishela (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one indepth source that has been reprinted in another place,[11][12] but it is only one, also though theoretically independent, practically it is a hagiography. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Before considering a new nomination, check whether a merger to 2014–15 North American winter can be done instead. So Why 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 North American cold wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports and occasional temperature records. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. They describe historic weather events that caused a lot of issues in the US, and both this cold wave and the November one garnered a lot of headlines in the news, especially when the very snowy pattern that each caused. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Major weather event that affected millions, with significant news coverage. The article should be improved and expanded, but outright deletion would rob Wikipedia of information on these specific events (the same could be said for several of the other nominated articles as well). LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article sources show several "coldest month in history" from Toronto to Montreal to Rochester. That's sufficiently notable. We absolutely do write articles about records, and it's pretty clear these records affected more people than gold medals in luge or broad jump. --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Broke records, contributed to deadly events, and has affected people. Satisfies GNG. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, but opinion is evenly divided on whether the topic requires a standalone article. This latter question is better suited to a merge discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 North American cold wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports and occasional temperature records. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. This particular event caused one of the coldest starts to January in North America since at least 2014. If you’re so picky about wanting to delete this then I guess Early 2014 North American cold wave should be deleted as well by all chances.. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Article is well referenced. If this article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to 2017–18 North American winter, or another suitable target. @MarioProtIV:, you might want to comment on each individual AFD submission. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years, and broken weather records are quite frequent. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is well-referenced and had significant impacts across the Eastern US. Multiple records were broken and millions of people were affected by this event; it's definitely notable enough to have an article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017–18 North American winter, we should be focusing on cold waves that had widespread impacts such as Early 2014 North American cold wave. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed we had an article for each winter season. This looks like a great merge target indeed. I would support merge rather than deletion. — JFG ^talk 07:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there seems a three-way disagreement as to delete, merge or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and set many records. James500 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Multiple records are notable. Yes, records tend to be broken every few years, but such is the fate of records, Olympic records for example, we still write about them when they are broken. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to suggested Winter target). I am unclear whether this would satisfy GNG, and in any case, I believe it would be an unwarranted content fork (just because it might be capable of being self-standing, doesn't mean it should). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CEASE MERGING FOR NOW - as the discussion has been reopened, the in-progress merges should cease for now. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Matter 100Percent[edit]

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

I don't believe this organisation meets WP:NORG. Searching for "You Matter 100Percent" yields nothing but the organisation's website and searching for "You Matter" and "U Jin Jo", the organisation's founder, is no better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom writes, I also searched for coverage and could not find any. The organization's own press page, https://www.youmatter100percent.org/articles only contains press about bullying in general, I couldn't find its name in any of them. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search fails to find WP:SIGCOV of this specific organization, so WP:GNG not met. Additionally, it seems like an effort to promote the founder, whose individual page was previously deleted at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Aarthi Ganesh[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Created by a single-purpose account who appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might be recreated if Ganesh gains notability after the remake of Mohini is released. wumbolo ^^^ 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NACTOR for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Corasani[edit]

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

This actor lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*very, very weak keep~~ WP:NACTOR.1. reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", he has had a few roles, apparently playing "the Muslim guy", mostly in minor roles in minor films and in a n episode of minor TV series. it may be just enough to squeak by. And, a non policy-based argument, our readers like to look actors up and expect them to be here. He gets a a fair number page hits. I think we should strive to be user friendly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the key point of WP:NACTOR.1. is "...significant roles in multiple...". I can accept that his role in The 15:17 to Paris is significant, he plays the villain. But all his other roles seem very minor, bit parts in films and single episodes of tv shows. I also can't find indepth articles about him. WP:TOOSOON --GRuban (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete User:GRuban persuades me. There is not enough SECONDARY to support WP:BASIC, and the roles seem to be very minor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Java Champions[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable circle-self-promotion initiative. damiens.rf 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any indepth reliable source coverage outside Oracle. There are bloggers very proud of becoming Java Champions, but they're hardly independent either. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion is premature as we were just in the process of updating this article to address the concerns expressed. As for the question of independence, as a group, Java Champions are completely independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.78.123 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GRuban's rationales. Nothing outside of the close community of Java developers.--1l2l3k (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fayrouz Saad[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. She ran in a congressional primary and lost, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, this page should be redirected to the main election page. There is coverage of her campaign, but she isn't independently notable and we don't typically (or didn't used to) host candidate bios until such time that those candidates became elected officials. Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete losing candidate in a primary election. Previous career was WP:MILL for a political operative. Quite a lot of identity-related coverage of her campaign, but, still, we don't keep losing candidates with no notability prior to or apart form the campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the in-depth and even international coverage clearly was not just about the campaign but about her as a female Muslim politician, daughter of immigrants, and her unconventional positions. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if Fayrouz had won the primary that would not have made her notable. Loosing the primary makes her clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we have decided that passing coverage at election time does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course candidates for the Congress who have received significant and in this case even international press coverage are automatically notable. And she had in-depth news coverage already a year before the primaries, very strange to call that "passing coverage at election time". Primary notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Omikroergosum (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references including The Independent and Spiegel show that she passes WP:GNG. Looking around, there is more, e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/muslims-running-for-office-2018-travel-ban-trump/index.html http://www.arabnews.com/tags/fayrouz-saad http://www.globaldetroit.com/detroits-fayrouz-saad-and-family-recognized-by-president-obama/ The latter, in particular, is not related to the Muslim Wave campaign. Ross-c (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ross-c, and (the article creator,) User:Omikroergosum, appear to be misunderstand the policy, WP:POL, as verified by WP:POLOUTCOMES and by many, many outcomes that can be viewed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive, is interpreted ot mean that a candidate has had WP:SIGCOV predating and apart from the candidacy. It is often the case that the individual has not had a Wikipedia page before deciding to run for office, but the page has to be validated by discovering preexisting SIGCOV or finding that the individual passes the standards in some category, such as WP:JOURNALIST. The exceptions are in instances of truly extraordinary coverage during the campaign. A recent example is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In this case, however, pre-candidacy WP:SIGCOVcoverage does not exist, what does exist is coverage of Fayrouz Saad's candidacy as part of a wave of Muslim-Americans running in the recent Democratic Party primary, where she placed fourth. It is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing my Keep vote on WP:POL, I'm basing it on WP:BASIC. If a person satisfies WP:BASIC then there is no need to satisfy specific requirements such as WP:POL. Hence I think E.M.Gregory's comment misses the point.Ross-c (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are both referring to the guideline WP:NPOL instead of WP:POL. I agree with Ross-c that you can meet either one to justify inclusion. NPOL itself states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

which as shown by many of the cited sources this BLP subject clearly does meet. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. I expanded the original stub and added the sections on the 2018 campaign etc. But since Saad has lost the election I don't know whether it meets the notability criteria. I have rewritten it now with some feedback I got from my wikiedu instructors. I saw that Krish Vighnaraja who has a wikipedia entry is somewhat similar to Saad. I defer to the better judgement of those who know wikipedia content more than I do. Thanks. GDevi17745 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745[reply]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah page should probably also be taken to AfD. Lost the primary election, and while she has held responsible jobs, I ran a quick search and failed to find pre-campaign coverage of her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there seems split views on whether there is sufficient non-standard coverage per POLOUTCOMES to warrant retention
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG and does not violate WP:ISNOT. There is significant coverage (more than trivial mentions) from multiple independent reliable sources. Meeting our general notability guidelines justifies inclusion even if she lost the election as I don't think that the article could be categorized as WP:NOTNEWS or any other example of what Wikipedia is not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that all of the sources are WP:MILL campaingn coverage, except those with the theme: "Fayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress," "These Candidates Could Be America’s First Muslim Women In Congress." There were 5: Rashida Tlaib has a page because she was a state legislator, and she will almost certainly become the First Muslim Women In Congress. Ilhan Omar was already in the state legislature, and therefore has a page. Deedra Abboud and Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, like Saas, were non-notable political activists before the campaign. They do not have pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources (including the last two cited by Ross-c), I see that many are not just WP:ROUTINE coverage but do provide in depth coverage. In my opinion clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explain above, we have a sort of case law and precedent tradition at WP under which we delete candidates who lose party primaries for house seats. The exceptions are not people who generate coverage during the campaign, they are people who have done something else that has drawn SIGCOV played in a notable band, been a notable teenage fashion model - something. Please scroll up the page, read my post, and link through ot the old deletions discussions. It will give you a better feel for which losing candidates are kept, and why.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, we must follow the currently approved policy and guidelines. WP:POLOUTCOMES is neither, it just points out that a candidate that looses an election does not have inherent notability, but I don't think that it means that we could ignore that it passes WP:GNG and that it does not violate WP:ISNOT. There are many guidelines on notability for different kinds of subjects, but they are all complementary to GNG if either one is met, it warrants the inclusion of the subject. For primary candidates who loose elections to be automatically excluded even if they have in-depth coverage from multiple independent RS I feel that it would need to fall as, or we would need to have it added as a criteria to the list of what Wikipedia is not.

Also please notice that most of the lead does not make reference to the failed candidacy that was mentioned only on the last sentence. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also please notice that she was quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs (see here) with no mention to her candidacy, and that is not the only international coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She drew little or no coverage during her the years she worked in non-elective political jobs; never held a major job; was never profiled by a news organization; and got no INDEPTH coverage before she ran in a primary election. A Muslim woman running for Congress was not a first - there were, as I write above, FOUR such candidates this year. But she lost. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Sonneborn. A spate of identity- driven (youngest, or Muslim woman) does not make a losing candidate in a Party primary notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Please refer to WP:WHATABOUTX. Her notability does not come from being a loosing candidate. The subject did receive significant coverage before running for the election. Examples from 2016: An Hour with Fayrouz Saad, Remarks by the President at Eid Reception, Detroit’s Fayrouz Saad and Family Recognized by President Obama. In any case she has also received non-routine coverage from multiple reliable sources (some of them international like The Independent, Spiegel, Al Jazeera, La Vanguardia, etc. ) which does count towards WP:GNG. The article itself is not centered on the fact that the subject did run for Congress and the fact that she failed does not invalidate the significant coverage beyond routine mentions therefore it clearly meets WP:GNG and since it does not violate WP:ISNOT I do not think that not been elected is a valid reason for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON for this failed candidate and ethnic activist who has held minor and/or local politics related jobs appointments. She has been building a resume, and has had the local coverage cited above by Crystallizedcarbon in local Detroit media, (Hour Detroit). In addition, the 3 sources cited above include a local acrivist organization, Global Detroit: Mobilizing Detroit's Immigrnat Population, and on the White House website when she was part of a group invited to the White House, administrations do this sort of ethno-religious recognition events. Beyond that, her candidacy garnered some coverage in Wave-of-Muslim-congressional-candidacies in the primary elections. This is WP:MILL primary season stuff. She finished 4th in the primary. She may well have a future in politics, but we don't keep failed candidates with this sort of ROUTINE coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine for candidates to receive international coverage and the subject has. What is your definition of routine coverage? This international in-depth coverage from The Independent: ayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress per WP:ROUTINE it's clearly to me that this is not just routine coverage, It is at an international level and it does not just mention the name as been a candidate, it is a very in-depth and long article about the subject, and clearly meets WP:SIGCOV:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The same applies to this article in German from Der Spiegel: Und diese Frau will Donald Trump besiegen? as well as others form other countries mentioned above and many at the national level. Again significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources is all that is needed to meet WP:GNG. The fact that some or most of that coverage may have been sparked by her failed candidacy is not a relevant factor towards meeting the guideline, and since she is also known, as shown in the article, for other events in her career (for example quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs without any mention to her candidacy) it is clearly not a case of WP:NOTNEWS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just want to add that while I was writing the Saad article for my wikiedu class, I called the Detroit Mayor's Immigrant Affairs Office and learned quite a bit about Saad's work there. However, this information was given to me by a staff of the office and I cannot quote myself in the article. There is no mainstream or international coverage about much of her work in the Mayor's office. So I have not included any of it in the article. It did make something very clear to me, however: Muslim women in politics in our country do not receive much interest and coverage by mainstream media. Notability for them has additional layers of constraints. It will be very hard for Saad to have much recognition for her public work unless she wins a major office. Thanks much.GDevi17745 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Deasy[edit]

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

PROD deleted with reasoning "previously deleted by PROD - take to WP:AFD please" ... player has never appeared in a WP:FPL, as all of his career appearances came in the League of Ireland First Division. Also fails WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG (needs more sources). SportingFlyer talk 06:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much coverage, and not in fully professional league. Yet. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Spleodrach (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Changes proposed by Uanfala may go forward. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banjari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD/WP:NCORP. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an article about a deity, so neither NBUILD nor NCORP seem to have much relevance here. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: NBUILD/NCORP doesn't apply on temples? » Shadowowl | talk 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. But the article is not about a temple. Its first two sentences are: Banjari is one of the popular Hindu deity in Orissa. There are many Banjari temples present in Western and Southern part of Orissa.. – Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It is a failed attempt to create a disambiguation page. » Shadowowl | talk 20:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The articles has oscillated in its history between the ethnic group and the deity, and the current version clobbers the two together. The ethnic group appears to be the same as the Banjara, so it appears best to restrict the current article to be about the deity, then move it to Banjari (deity) and make Banjari a disambiguation page (with the addition of an entry for the language). There's no prejudice to the article getting renominated, provided the notability of the deity is challenged. I'm not in the business of evaluating the notability of deities, but a web search reveals plenty of results about various temples dedicated to it, so I'm not particularly worried about having such an article in mainspace (despite its poor present shape). – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the speedy keep; this should be a DAB page. The page probably needs a hist-split for the deity. [13] is a reference for the existence of a Banjari deity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments made by Uanfala Accesscrawl (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per arguments above and failed WP:BEFORE. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bishop (artist)[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails WP:PORNBIO. Searching brings up a lot of people with the same name. » Shadowowl | talk 10:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No inline sources for a bio at all. Plus, there is a slight promotional tone to the article. I don't see it anywhere near WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That being said, per nominator's comment, searching brings up a lot of people with the same name might render the article as a hoax. EROS ^message 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also could not find any sources verifying this is a notable artist. Finnishela (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax - it's easy to find references and collections of his work - but I couldn't find the sort of reliable sources we could build an article with. › Mortee _talk 20:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

War Kings[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for its own article. Team is not independently notable, anything important is already in the member's individual articles so nothing to merge. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any indepth independent coverage of the team. --GRuban (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability established. Only WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 09:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ngong Ping 360. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nei Lak Shan Angle Station[edit]

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

As I understand it, these "angle stations" are just a part of the infrastructure of the Ngong Ping 360 gondola, and aren't really "stations" because passengers cannot normally board or alight. They probably fail the GNG since much of the news coverage which mentions them is about the gondola's operational issues. There is basically nothing to merge. Jc86035 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the stubs here at English Wikipedia because of the Chinese Wikipedia articles: zh:彌勒山轉向站 (Nei Lak Shan Angle Station) and zh:機場島轉向站 (Airport Island Angle Station). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Personally, I think the Chinese Wikipedia has too many articles about Hong Kong and probably not enough articles about everything else. Almost every bus route in Hong Kong gets its own article, as do about one thousand streets and roads, even though most of their articles would be deleted on sight on the English Wikipedia for not establishing notability. Jc86035 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this and Airport Island Angle Station to Ngong Ping 360. I don't think there's enough notability for either angle station to have a standalone article, but they are prominent features on the cable car line and are therefore rightly described in the Ngong Ping 360 article. Redirecting will allow the keyword to be indexed and the reader brought to a page with more context about these angle stations. Deryck C. 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not really completed a notability assessment, but I agree with redirecting over deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ATD and WP:R these pages should not be deleted because they could be redirected to Ngong Ping 360, the line of which these stations form part. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable by itself, but a list of stations would still be useful. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as explained above. The content in the article is already present in Ngong Ping 360.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also per consensus, moved to Asmodee. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodée Éditions[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, references are all based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. No references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm thinking that at minimum, Forbes, ICv2, and Polygon count as reliable sources, but no idea about the rest. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by Forbes contributors - versus staff - have been described on several occasions as unreliable in community discussions (as indexed here). I'll reserve judgment on the other two. Chetsford (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. We happen to have an article about that contributor. David M. Ewalt. It says "deputy editor of special projects at Forbes". --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is literally the worst BEFORE I've ever seen. Chet, you are out of the dog house! Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More formally Keep - just click on the French link from the article, and look at the sources there. No, the French article is not really better than ours, and yes, there are many citations of the company website, but there are also many journalistic cites from independent RS in French. Clear pass of GNG and NCORP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, too many sources that are just announcements, and that doesn't help, but there are definitely existing sources there and more I can find that are non-first-party/non-primary that at least outline the basic history of the company. And while I would not want to implore a concept of upwards inherited notability, those sources coupled with the number of notable board games under their roof make having at least a landing page to summarize the basics of the company as reported from third-party sources makes sense. --Masem (t) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am french, and it's a well-known Role-playing game editor in France. More specifically, that source in Le Monde says: Funded in 1995 by a few excited people led by Marc Nunès, the company has just arrived, less than twenty years later, to the first place of tabletop games and pokemon type cards in France. This one from Le Figaro says it's the european leader of board games. Both are more than enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are a combination of broken links, press releases, incidental mentions, and blogs. A standard (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) BEFORE fails to find anything further. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world now. Publishers of most non-traditional family board games in the world including Settlers of Catan, Pandemic, Ticket to Ride, Arkham Horror and many others. I'll see what sources I can dig up. This AfD feels like it didn't follow WP:BEFORE. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thinking further on this I think some of the confusion may be surrounding the name. I can't find any evidence that the company goes by the name Asmodée Éditions any longer. All references I can find, including their own website, indicates they are just called Asmodee these days. This may help with locating reliable sources as no one refers to them as Asmodée Éditions including themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world I find it hard to believe "Asmodee" is bigger than Hasbro, Ravensburger, etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Asmodee's purchase by PAI partners for about 1.2B euros, annual revenues given around 150-400 million euros. (Hasbro is $5B).This is because Asmodee has bought out a huge # of publishers over the last 10 years. --Masem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So yes looks like I was wrong on the 2nd biggest. It appears (from my own original research) to be the 3rd biggest (by a hair). No one is remotely close to Hasbro, but Asmodee had a turnover of €442m ^[2] last year compared to Ravensburger's €447m. ^[3] Making it only fractionally smaller than Ravensburger at that point, and probably larger by now since they've acquired more this year. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the French version has more sources that we can pull from (I've tried to do that already). --Masem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Asmodee per WP:COMMONNAME. Also keep per sources and size. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage by Forbes, Reuters, Ars Technica... sheesh. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep there is coverage in hundreds of reliable, secondary sources, as a ten second Google search easily reveals. As per User:Hobit, I also support a rename of the article to simply Asmodee. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete; a merger with Hamidreza Jalaeipour may be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour[edit]

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

No evidence for notability . He is apparently an individual foreign student in the US caught up, like so many others, in the current immigration policy . The policy here is ONEEVENT. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hamidreza Jalaeipour, his father, who is prominent in Iran. It's clear, from the three news articles currently cited, that Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour has been arrested and detained several times by the Iranian authorities over the last 8 years, but I'm not sure that is enough information about him to warrant a standalone article. Sionk (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has independent coverage in reliable sources. Some references were added. The sources in Persian are much more. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*:Delete (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)striking sock comment. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough coverage in independent sources. Passes WP:GNG.

Knightrises10 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Sionk - makes sense. Redditaddict_6_9 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm actually going to have to go with Keep here, but a bit weakly. There are a lot of independent sources on the page that significantly cover the topic, so I'd say it passes WP:GNG. I don't think this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT either, as there is coverage of several different events concerning Jalaeipour in the sources. I will say that if the article can't be kept, I support merging some of the more important information in this article into the Hamidreza Jalaeipour article, and redirecting this there.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Sionk.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources about him moreover he had first 1 rank in Iranian University Entrance Exam and his article in fawiki was also kept Mardetanha (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article doesn't really reflect the sources. The article is about him being a student and activist, while the sources are about him being regularly arrested from 2009 through 2017. That's continued international coverage; though presumably not for any topic he would prefer to be known for. --GRuban (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tight Screw[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The Article is "media speculation" about a supposedly military operation in 2012 that failed to get the necessary coverage it needs to pass WP:GNG other than news hit. Army denies any such operation.[14] The keep vote in the last 3 AfD were too optimistic with the news hits and focussed on WP:FUTURE and Nominator issues. But come 2018 and even after 6 years since last Afd was closed there is no coverage or content other than passing mentions to merit an article. (Afd1 was closed as No consensus and Afd2 and 3 were Non admin closures)--DBig Xray 13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not to be confused with Operation Zarb-e-Azb that started in 2014. DBig Xray 12:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBig Xray 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. DBig Xray 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some additional references. [15] [16] [17] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Forums blogs or unconfirmed Media speculations as listed above are not counted as valid refs.--DBig Xray 13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article already has some good references. It would be helpful if someone could search in Urdu and the other languages of Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate policy based discussion. Pakistan Speaks English and Urdu, so sources If exist are not hard. There is lack of detailed coverage hence fails WP:NOTNEWS I am open to withdrawing if we can have consensus.--DBig Xray 13:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This has the feel of an article about a rumour. It is not helped by having a series of blank sections for successive years, which suggests that the editor creating it expected to have a series of operations to report on, but never completed it. I recommend deletion, without prejudice to re-creation if there is an article worth creating. I note the first 3 AFDs were in 2012 and 2013, when people thought something might be happening. That lack of anything being added since, strongly suggests that nothing was. Is there anything in the Urdu WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting. How did this get through the first AfD discussion? Entirely speculative, not enough coverage that meets RS. NOTNEWS applies, in my view. Strikerforce^Talk 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with User:Strikerforce and Peterkingiron older AfDs are perhaps the lab specimen examples of why arguments based on WP:FUTURE with "current news hits of speculative reporting" as sources should be avoided like the plague at AfDs.--DBig Xray 19:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been real, it would have been significant, but we could not know that at the time: it then looked real. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like a more solid consensus first before overturning the results of the earlier AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no verifiable evidence except of speculation and the military denying it ever happened. No prejudice to recreation if any verifiable information surfaces. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article: a secretive joint military operation which the Pakistan military had claimed they were going to launch. WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:NOTRUMOUR: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bang that fizzled. To quote from the first AFD, "We should wait for now to see if the operation gets more coverage". Well, it didn't. --GRuban (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Kumar Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line mentions or quotes. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm seeing one somewhat substantive piece here, but the rest of the sources are all one-line mentions. Furthermore, most of those mentions, and a fair bit of the piece I linked, is related to his election to a post which is not inherently notable; as such I think WP:BLP1E applies here. Also, of the students involved in the JNU sedition row, we have articles on two (Kanhaiya Kumar and Shehla Rashid Shora), and an article about a third (Umar Khalid) was deleted following this discussion. A google news search shows that Sharma has several orders of magnitude less news coverage than Khalid, whose article was deleted. Given that both have claims to notability largely stemming from the same incident, I'd suggest this is precedence for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Remove Weak delete tag - Substantive pieces are listed here, here, here, here and [18]. A Google news search shows that Sharma has 1370 results mentions which is good enough for a student leader who is still under age of 30. His election to a post which was highly covered by national media and his action on that post started an international debate, his hunger strike for a higher scholarship for students helped many across India, his leadership against sexual harassment in university makes him worthy of a Wikipedia page. Also, his action started JNU sedition row, and we have articles on two opposing student leaders (Kanhaiya Kumar and Shehla Rashid Shora), which makes it necessary to show information about Sharma to keep Wikipedia neutral of political bias. Comparing him with (Umar Khalid) is unjustified. Kr.saurabh10 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kr.saurabh10 Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions there is no comparison among these people and their level of WP:SIGCOV--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Considering how popular the name Saurabh Kumar is, in India, I am frankly unimpressed that it only threw 1k google hits. This claim of google hit is useless anyway. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Vanamonde. The 2016-03-19 piece in the Times of India is the only substantial coverage; the non-English refs provided by Kr.saurabh10 are fairly trivial as well. Student politics are generally not covered in great detail on Wikipedia, simply being a student leader is never inherently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable student activist lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying either WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources, and realized I was about to write exactly what Power~enwiki and Vanamonde wrote; only one of the sources is really about him, and even it isn't very long, the rest are two sentence mentions. --GRuban (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBIO due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Failed WP:NPOLITICIAN by miles. Agree with the other editors above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus that wp:PROF is satisfied as per sourcing and pre-eminent position. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Polka[edit]

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

Reads like a CV, and I can't see that it passes WP:NACADEMIC. Specifically, the "Fellowships and honors" listed don't look like "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Bishonen | talk 08:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does read a bit like a CV, but that's fixable and not relevant to this discussion. I think its worth mentioning that there has already been a discussion on the article's talk page regarding "self promotion". Quite a few relevant points are put forward by GerardM, Opto kitty and Dario. ThisIsAnAdvert also puts forward their view. Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Polka is quoted in articles in Nature and Science". I think that the readers of these top division journal's would assume that the journal quotes notable scientists - I do. Victuallers (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Request to remove on 15 August failed and deletion is not going to happen, because Polka has a respectable position as executive director of ASAPbio and got fellowships as well. She has even her own category @Commons, Greetings and salutations from Amsterdam by Klaas `Z4␟` V 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding WP:NACADEMIC

Number 2 - Dr Polka has won the ASCB Americal Society for Cell Biology (a UK premier institution in her discipline) award for her graduate work. Dr Polka is one of 20 fellows who ahve won the Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research WP:Jane_Coffin_Childs_Memorial_Fund_for_Medical_Research.

Number 7 - Dr Polka has achieved a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, in improving research culture. This has received national and international attention in major scientific press (5 authored articles in Nature and science). She was an invited & initial founder ASAPBio effort. I further note that Dr Polka has 6,000 twitter followers which is a quantified metric, in support of the view that she is reaching beyond an academic bubble and influencing the wider community ^[4]. Dr Polka is also invited to sit on panels and other major discussion forums to further understanding of the issues affecting the progression of early career researchers (these are referenced in her article).

These are cited clearly in the Wikipedia page which notes here past and present achievements. This article should be kept for the benefit of wikipedia readers.

In addition to these referenced comments, the editors of Wikipedia should re-consider NP academic and how single editors can trigger a deletion request based upon limited interpretation of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. BenBritton (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2018/08/20/one-championship-and-ufc-represent-global-duopoly-in-martial-arts/#772cff5843d4
^ http://www.paipartners.com/mediaitem/pai-partners-acquires-asmodee-group/
^ https://www.ravensburger-gruppe.de/en/about-ravensburger/business-development/index.html
^ http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2018-0002

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF on account of being a go-to expert for her area, multiple times by reliable publications. I don't think "number of Twitter followers" is a number we should consider one way or the other (people get followed by spambots for no fault of their own, etc.), but notability is adequately established on other grounds. In addition, ASAPbio has been adequately covered, and that counts in her favor. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Polka is widely acknowledged as one of the leaders in the preprint revolution that's changing how scholarly communication functions. I edited the article to further clarify the role she had in this space and on the impact of this initiative. Because of this initiative, she's been featured on mainstream and specialized press, including the New York Times, Wired and Nature. If she doesn't pass BLP notability as a scientist and scholarly communication expert, I frankly don't know who else does.--DarTar (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above arguments Duncan.Hull (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: prizes, and key role in science publishing culture. PamD 09:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the keep rationales posted by others above. The article probably needs some cleanup, but it should not be deleted. --Krelnik (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable as noted in the discussion above, and the article isn't so bad it needs a complete re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jane pile[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. Nothing found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding any WP:RS coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources on page are PRIMARY; neither author not book are coming up in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no independent sources, also Wikipedia:Geogre's Law. --GRuban (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A3, WP:G6, WP:G1. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad ass[edit]

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

This is, technically speaking, an article. Is this smth we need here in the main space? Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under SK1, since "do we need this" is not an argument for deletion (also, I'm pretty sure interwiki redirects are redirects, not articles, so they have their own criteria, and in any case, Redirects are cheap. If it looks like it might be useful, it's probably better to give it the benefit of doubt) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SK1 does not apply. If we are never going to have this article on Wikipedia (and I do not see the notability of the term) it should be deleted. This is not a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plus tagged with WP:G1 and WP:G6. This article purely exist to redirect users to Wikitionary. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. as having no content. There was no need to bring it to this forum. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari GG50[edit]

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

The article is poorly structured and is useless when the article on the Ferrari 612 provides a detailed description about the one-off concept car. U1Quattro (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but why does this need to go to AFD? It seems like what you want is a redirect and merge. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Morris (basketball)[edit]

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

Fails NHOOPS. Coverage around basketball is all ROUTINE and thus doesn't contribute to GNG. Most signficant coverage comes for arrest but that should not grant a person notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator of article, the subject received significant non-routine coverage in high school (by Rivals, NBC Sports, etc.) and was also featured in an article by The Dallas Morning News about the JBA. News about the arrest adds to notability. Runningibis (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator's premise that the most notable thing he did was get arrested. There are sources about his high school and JBA career for instance, including the Dallas Morning News article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Editorofthewiki: I didn't suggest that his notability was for the arrest. I suggested that the most significant coverage was for the arrest, which (admittedly) does have WP:CRIME implications. But I assume the page was created because of Morris' basketball playing. As noted he fails WP:NHOOPS and also WP:ANYBIO so this is a GNG claim. The Dallas Morning News article is really about the JBA of which Morris is one of two players given coverage. His high school coverage is all routine for a D1 recruit. There is not evidence of sourcing to support GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree that his high school coverage is routine for a D1 recruit. Articles like those by NBC Sports and Rivals, which are solely about Morris, are not published for every high school player with D1 offers. Runningibis (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Dallas Morning News article was primarily on the JBA, and used Morris and fellow basketballer Wek as examples of players helped by the JBA. While this is a cut above a trivial mention, it is not as though this article could be said to be about Morris. I'm unclear on how the coverage in Rivals is non-routine, since they seem to have similar pages on anyone who is a prospect. The NBC Sports College Basketball Talk page [19] is the most outside non-routine coverage I can see, but even then I don't know that it suffices for WP:GNG. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although Rivals has profile pages for every high school recruit, their articles (like the one cited) would be considered non-routine coverage. Runningibis (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be helpful to provide links here to the pages you are referring to. When I looked up Morris on Rivals I got this, which is utterly routine. But I think you are referring to this, which is not great but at least an argument can be made that it is not routine (although I am not convinced). Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am talking about the second link you provided. Runningibis (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the college basketball+arrest coverage, nor the JBA coverage, is enough for me. There's certainly many sources, but the college coverage is local and WP:MILL, and the pro coverage is trivial. Possibly WP:TOOSOON; if he continues a professional career he's likely to meet notability guidelines in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet any SNG and I think the coverage is too routine to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't consider the articles on his dismissal from Ole Miss and arrests and the Rivals profile to be routine, but perhaps that's just me. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes being arrested and/or dismissed from their college team is a very common occurrence these days. It seems like you're now claiming that's what makes him notable, given that he doesn't meet the notability criteria for basketball players. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7. ... discospinster _talk 13:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Yay[edit]

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

Repeated recreations by author after CSDs. Only source is Instagram (not a reliable source). Awards aren't sourced and cannot verify (after Googling with a wide variety of search terms) that any of these awards even exist, much less that they have been awarded to Little Yay for the works mentioned. Hell, googling for "Little Yay" (with quotes) only returns a few social media links for "Little Yay Design", which is a greeting card company. Looking at some of the post comments, I see a massive hashtag dump of stuff like "#followforlikes", "#followtrain" and such. Waggie (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Little Yay only makes use of Instagram to promote his morality and message to the world and does not utilize most of other social media platforms or websites, which is why his Instagram page is the most reliable source. I am the manager of Little Yay, and both he and I can approve that as well as confirming to what is accurate and inaccurate.

Prestonhung (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (HKT)

Wikipedia doesn't consider what a subject has to say about themselves to be reliable, especially when they are clearly praising themselves. We don't allow self-promotion on Wikipedia, and we require multiple third-party reliable sources to support all content. Waggie (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues, repeated recreation after admin intervention, not to mention that the article creator blanked the AfD nominator's user page. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ignore the userpage blanking thing as a simple WP:CIR issue. Waggie (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. A7 and G11 are still valid, and the article should not be recreated until notability criteria are met. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt There are many problems with this, as described above, but the lack of general notability is the most fundamental to this AfD nomination. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Wolcott[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Two dozen credits for voiceover work but no articles that I can find. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--1l2l3k (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Dubey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Trivial unreliable tabloid-style coverage, created by account with pattern of copyvio, and in all likelihood improperly moved from draftspace to mainspace. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Bhojpuri cinema actress with coverage that passes WP:GNG due to these source. [20] [21] [22], Popular for her Item numbers [23], worked in at least 13 films. The majority target audience of Bhojpuri dont read English news, per Language WP:BIAS, the fact that there exists a few sources with detailed coverage, passes the notability test. --DBig Xray 09:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added 3 of these refs in the article.--DBig Xray 10:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't provide failing GNG as a deletion rationale, but even so I don't think the provided sources pass GNG, much less the higher standard of NACTOR. I did look at the translated Hindi page (and will again since my laptop isn't translating it) but the other sources are a trivial mention in an awards post (that doesn't inherently provide notability), and a routine casting announcement. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DBigXray and The Times of India does refer to her as well-known Bhojpuri actress.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India referring to her as a "well-known actress" doesn't automatically guarantee notability. It's a trivial mention. The only way she even nears WP:NACTOR is if we decide that the interview cited above is reliable (and since we're discouraged from using interviews to establish BLP notability, I'm hinging towards no) under WP:NACTOR #2 (large fan base) or #3 "prolific contributions". The list of films is included at the end of an article that's not even about her, so I don't see it as being verifiable, not to mention the films are likely not notable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Well Known" equate to "Trivial mention" ? Aren't they on the opposite sides of the notability ? Zee News and times of India are national WP:MAINSTREAM news outlets in India and not tabloids. WP:SIGCOV criteria is met here. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was not clear .The subject does pass WP:NACTOR #2 and even maybe #1 and agree that WP:SIGCOV is meet by coverage by Zee News and times of India even without coverage from Bhojpuri newspapers.She is described by The Times of India as Bhojpuri cinema's superstar Poonam Dubey and has huge fan following and this states Bhojpuri siren Poonam Dubey celebrates 10 million views of Chana Jor Garam .Please note Bhojpuri is not Hindi and Bhojpuri Cinema is much smaller compared to Hindi cinema.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article speedily deleted under criterion G5. Contrary to what was said below, the creator of the article certainly had at least one account blocked, and probably more, before the creation of the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Newman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. 33 edits by a Sock. 3 edits by Wikipedia editors and 12 edits by 7 SPA editors. Article was G5'd. Completely non notable. scope_creep (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G5. Criteria for speedy deletion shows that an article doesnt apply for G5 speedy deletion if it was created before the ban/block or after the ban was lifted or user unblocked. The article was created June 26 2018 and the created Tabuhart was blocked on July 30 2018. Article doesn't fall under this criterion. Consider it please. 41.210.146.141 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could you explain why this article would fail WP:BIO? The sources are all outside, seem reliable, and most of them are focused on Newman herself (non-trivial). Gilded Snail (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gilded Snail, More than 2 thirds of revisions have been created by a sock who has been indeffed, with the article up at WP:COI at the moment. Of the remaining revisions, 2 are by Wikipedia account holders on good faith, including another one when I tried to G5 it. The other 12 edits are with 8 separate SPA editors creating revisions, including removing the G5 tag, and minor edits, who are undoubtedly WP:PAID . All in all, it is complete hash of revision history, excluding the two good faith editors with one linking text, another placing/removing a tag. Personally, if the lady is notable, I think the article should be better deleted and recreated with a clean revision history. I don't think she is. I suspect she is just radio personality, is getting some coverage due to secondary notability. But if she is, I don't mind recreating it. And it will be as clean as a whistle. scope_creep (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable, has served for 18 years on radio and TV in Uganda (Oldest private owned radios are around 25 years old), and passes WP:BIO. The article is well sourced with reliable sources directly about Crystal.YaraBo (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: counter systemic bias. Anyone from the first world with these credentials would be 100% notable. Max Semenik (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bandwidth (signal processing). Clear consensus to redirect/merge somewhere, but less clear on where. I'm going with the one mentioned more often, but feel free to hash out the exact target on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essential bandwidth[edit]

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

This "definition" article was just de-orphaned, which is how it came to my attention. It is a one-line poor and imprecise definition of a little-used concept, not really worthy of an article even if we want to mention the concept in another article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spectral_density#Energy_spectral_density, and drop the definition in there (I hesitate to call this a 'merge'). It's a simple concept without much to say about it (AFAIK) and should be well served with a short mention within the larger topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with merge and redirect but I think Bandwidth (signal processing) would be a better target, at least if we are just having this simple definition. Merging to spectral density I feel would require the addition of some of the underlying mathematics. I can't agree with Dicklyon that this is "little used"; gbooks comes up with numerous textbooks that seem to think this is an important concept, [24][25][26][27] SpinningSpark 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I too found GBooks and Gscholar references numerous enough to convince me this is a term worth mentioning somewhere in our articles. I tend to agree this is a definition of bandwidth dependent on energy, rather than about energy itself, hence Bandwidth (signal processing) may be the referred target. I think this is probably a culture thing. Those who come from an electronics/filtering background naturally concentrate on signal envelope, so characterizing the bandwidth by the cutoff frequency makes the most sense. Others who look at signals as stochastic processes think a probabilistic confidence interval and essential bandwidth are the natural measures. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by admin RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A1, WP:A3, WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuickStudy[edit]

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

This page may not be notable. It looks like a thinly veiled link to BarCharts.com.

The second entry seem to be a dictionary definition. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a discussion of this article here:

“

ENotes has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review WP:WEB for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Metrofeed. You left the following message on my talk page:

After reading the guidelines more carefully, I see the purpose in deletion, although it may be possible to improve the article, I do not have enough information to do so at this time. My purpose was to improve upon the article "Study Guides" which references various similar sites which do have Wikipedia citations. Should those also be deleted? I feel I am too new to delete them myself but perhaps you can take a look and see if deletion for QuickStudy and/or Bookrags is appropriate? I will remove the internal link on that article to ENotes now.

Thank you for your message. As per your request, let's take a look at the other articles linked to from Study Guides, i.e. Cliffs Notes, SparkNotes, BookRags and QuickStudy.

It is apparent from the articles themselves that Cliffs Notes (for the printed books) and SparkNotes (for the traffic) are notable, so we'll leave them alone for now. As for the others, a quick way to get a feel for the notability of a website is to look up their mentions on Google News (BookRags:1, QuickStudy:0, ENotes:8). Another is to check their Alexa traffic ranking (lower is better: BookRags:14'171, QuickStudy:327'042, ENotes:18,232; for comparison purposes: SparkNotes:2,665; Cliffs Notes:25,978, Wikipedia:22).

This indicates to me that BookRags and ENotes might well be notable, but need more sources to prove it (as required by WP:WEB), but that QuickStudy is very probably non-notable. Accordingly, I've proposed QuickStudy for deletion and put up a "notability wanted" notice on BookRags and ENotes, to give editors time to assemble those sources.

A final note: Please sign your messages on talk pages by appending four tildes (~~~~). Best regards, and have fun to continue editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

”

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article does not have any references and the only external link is to barcharts.com. Vorbee (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for The Right Way, Delete for the other two films nominated here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Way (2004 film)[edit]

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

Film doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILM notability.

Also nominating:

Le beau risque

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

Calla Lily (film)

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

AFD for film maker:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney (3rd nomination)

AFD of his films:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Right Way (2004 film) reviews ran in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, and was the first role of Keir Gilchrist's career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteLe beau risque and Calla Lily (film), both fail WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Right Way as per the reliable sources reviews mentioned above. Have no view on the other films, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor, both Le beau risque and Calla Lily (film) could have been PROD or SPEEDY since neither has any sources beyond IMDB and auteur's website; does feature an appearance as "The Big Man" by pro wrestler Franky The Mobster, according to IMDB.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Right Way, per the 2 reviews (I fixed a link to one of them on the page). Delete the other two for lack of coverage. Much as E.M.Gregory wrote, actually. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kutak Rock[edit]

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

Large but non-notable law firm. It has some notable people who were once part of the firm, but that does not in itself make the firm notable. Founder Robert Kutak is on the edge of notability, and if this were an article on him, rather than the firm, I don't think I'd have AFDed it; but there's actually little of him in the article; it;s mostly a law firm advertisement. TJRC (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my long-standing standards for notable law firms. It has over 500 attorneys and at least an equal number of staff. Kutak, the founding name partner, should have his own article as he was a national leader in the ABA, and one lawyer became a justice in her state supreme court. There are plenty of sources to show notability as a business. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's some substantive coverage, such as about FDIC's action against the firm: Anatomy of a Banking Scandal. There are a couple of notable alumni, etc. I removed some of the promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ABA Journal, Spokane Journal, and Knight Ridder pieces together are substantial independent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thirsty Swagman[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Promotional articles about "beers in space" from 2011 that never turned into anything don't make this notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference I can find meets the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH - most discuss the "product" and not the company. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma fusion preface[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a viable article. It is just a collection of notes on plasma physics and other topics related to plasma fusion. Wikipedia is not the right venue for this content, at least not in this form. Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a single trace of term "Plasma fusion preface" in Google Scholar or Books. A private collection of notes with no evidence or indication of relevance and importance. And essentially unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article, more an essay or lecture notes. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity could be considered as an alternative to deletion? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've read through it again yesterday and decided that as it stands, the article is likely only to be of private interest, and is simply using Wikipedia as storage. If the article creator wants to turn it into a encyclopedia article or textbook, they can always request a copy be emailed to them.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not true, my intension was never to use Wikipedia as storage, my intension was to share what I have learned and spread that knowledge to perhaps make people understand better. I have other forums for storage. Knoppson (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I do not understand is that if you are so disappointed in my article, why not change it yourselves? I like it as it is so I don't really want to change it but I do recognize now that I scroll trough it that it isn't that professionally written. But what did you expect from a passionate Swede :) Knoppson (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we thought this could fit within our scope as an article, we would work to improve it. The issue is not whether it is professionally written, it's that the type of material and its organization into an article is not suitable for Wikipedia. We publish encyclopedia articles, not collections of notes. Each article needs to have a defined topic, and it needs to present that topic in an organized way. "Plasma fusion preface" is not a topic.

We already have articles on plasma physics, fusion, etc. A lot of this material would probably be better if it were incorporated into those existing articles, rather than just collecting it all in one page with no real organization. I also agree with the suggestion above that one of the other Wikis might be a better site to host a collection of notes, although I'm not familiar enough with them to say which one would be appropriate.--Srleffler (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a host for miscellaneous notes, passionately written or otherwise. Save your notes, flesh them out and post them somewhere else as a "Background to plasma fusion" if you like. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear reasons above. Not up to standard expected for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the same reason as XOR'easter. --Steve (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now tranferred the article to Wikibooks where I hope it fits better with the rules. Actually you have helped me realize what to do with this article. The article will be developed into a book but I have lots of more studies to do. In time the developing will almost only consist of more notes and material. Before DVdm's little talk with me I did not fully understand what Wikipedia is about, now I know and I can tell you this that I will never try to write an article on Wikipedia again, the reason is that i really live for original research, that is what makes my writing exciting. Knoppson (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knoppson: that is good to hear, but it you ever stumble upon research of the non-or-much-less-original kind, by all means feel free to contribute here! Good luck

- DVdm (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Knoppson (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ohr[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable individual outside one in-the-news event; WP:BLP1E would seem to dictate that any mention belongs in the article about the event, because there isn't enough to write an actual biography here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon this - all reliable sources cited in the article discuss Ohr in the context of his apparent involvement in the investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russian intelligence. The entire article, as constituted, discussed Ohr's involvement in this event. That is a textbook WP:COATRACK, and a textbook example of why we avoid writing biographies about marginally-notable people involved in larger events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person and his wife have been attacked repeatedly by Donald Trump and today the White House announced that they are considering removing his security clearance which would end his career. Just today, he has been the subject of major articles in the New York Times and The Federalist. Ohr has also been criticized by prominent Republican congressmen including Devin Nunes, Darryl Issa and Trey Gowdy. I believe that the Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent investigation are far more than a "single event", and that Wikipedia ought to have verifiable and neutral articles about people involved in this who have been the subject of ongoing coverage by reliable sources for an extended period of time. That includes Bruce Ohr. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist is not a reliable source; it's a partisan house organ. The New York Times article discusses Ohr exclusively in the context of the event. There are not the foundations of a "biography" here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that this lengthy saga is "one event" and I think the fact that coverage of Bruce Ohr has been ongoing for months demonstrates that this goes way beyond "one event". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the available reliable sources, what can be said about Ohr which isn't related to his involvement in this single event? If we can't find any, this shouldn't be a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to include biographical information about his marriage to Nellie Ohr, since there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- More than six months have passed since this article was created and Ohr is still getting coverage. Here are some very recent examples: Little-Known Justice Dept. Official Makes Trump’s Security Clearance List (NY Times) (realize how they spin him as "little-known", don't think that's still the case when you have written several stories on him), Washington Times, Newsweek, Fox News (and all those in the past week or so). WP:BLP1E does not apply when the person is involved with a significant event and coverage is persistent. The biography can expanded, there's plenty of sources available. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be expanded? What material about Ohr which isn't related to his involvement in this event can be added? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to expand if you didn't keep deleting sourced content.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the nominator (NorthBySouthBaranof) please explain why he thinks the keep arguments made in the previous AFD for this article just a few months ago are invalid? The consensus there was clearly that BLP1E does not apply to Ohr and that, therefore, he is notable, in line with Cullen's argument above. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD decision had very few !voters, several of whom have edited this biography in an apparent effort to grind a political ax; one of them believes that the right-wing scandal sheet Gateway Pundit is an acceptable source. I saw a note on this at the BLPN, and this needs broader attention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry NBSB, I'm with Cullen328 here. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a case for WP:BLP1E. Notability is clear based on extensive and continuous coverage and reliable sources as illustrated by Cullen328 and as sourced in the Wiki article. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep This morning's Washington Post explains why: Who is Bruce Ohr and why does Trump keep tweeting about him?, and as per arguments cogently made at previous AfD. User:NorthBySouthBaranof, When bringing any article back to AfD after it has been kept, but especially one that was kept just a few weeks ago, it is a good idea to give a policy-based justification for bringing it back to AfD so quickly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's something particularly incongruous about invoking BLP1E (which doesn't "dictate" anything) after another event brings renewed attention to a person. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't have time to fix this, and it should not stay up with only a Fox News reference, so unless someone else gets it in shape pretty quick I would say "Delete."Rose bartram (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep As demonstrated above, the subject has received sustained significant coverage. The arguments from the previous AfD still hold, and there appears to be no new reason to warrant this sequel deletion nom. Davey2116 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, not only is there no new reason for this sequel deletion nom, Ohr has received even more coverage very recently. The article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The President of the United States says he will revoke the security clearance of this person, a current Department of Justice career official, not because of any specific wrongdoing but because of his involvement in the early stages of a counterintelligence and criminal investigation of the President's campaign. Historians will be studying events like these for generations. Pigu (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has received widespread media coverage. An important part of an important event. JS (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable and has received widespread media coverage. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Does meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO and does not meet WP:BLP1E. Has just been nominated and was kept in WP community consensus. Since then there was more coverage so even less reason to delete! Please nominate articles wisely. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, I think you should withdraw this so we can get on with it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep it, I don't care anymore. I'm wasting my time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Cannon[edit]

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

Not independently notable, Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked for sources and all I could find were ones that discussed him in the context of the club he owned closing. No indication of anything even approaching notability guidelines for music and GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His band is not the same as the LP Bitter Tongues, but by a different artist. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indepth independent coverage; though there seems to be a possibly notable chef of the same name... --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MindGeek. Strong consensus that there is a lack of reliable, significant coverage on Tube8 itself, thus notability not satisfied. There was also a strong consensus on the preferable redirect target (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tube8[edit]

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

Site is not notable on its own. Signficant coverage is either for its parent company MindGeek or its network Pornhub. A redirect to one of those two pages seems more appropriate than this as a standalone page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not meets WP:WEBPAGE.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MindGeek. Tube8 lacks significant RS coverage to satisfy WP:WEB. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MindGeek. - Out of the first 10 cites I checked only one is actually about Tube8 (it bangs on about Tube8 mobile), The other 9 are either not cites, are 2 bit mentions or no mentions at all ..., There are Sources on Google News however my laptop is refusing to translate these however these don't look to be reliable sources anyway, Redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MindGeek, Since it's notability is lacking while it's parent company: Mindgeek's notablity meets WP:Web, I feel that a redirect is also needed as well. JC7V-constructive zone 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuoji Zhou[edit]

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

An ordinary person who made a lot of money in Bitcoin in 2017, and now says he runs a hedge fund. I can't access the Bloomberg ref, but I don't feel the other two don't demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly one way or another if the article stays up, but after reading the Forbes article about him I wanted to know more, and did not find him on Wikipedia, so I gave him an article. I really would like to know more about him, and thought other people would also. Everyone on Wikipedia is an "ordinary person" that did something special. He seems to be an up and coming investor that is starting to make a name for himself. Perhaps he is not "notable" now, but will be one day? Do people like that get Wiki articles? Jambo321 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jambo321. People who are not notable yet but might be in the future generally shouldn't have articles. When they get to the point that they have lots of news coverage and the like, then we can make an article. See the page WP:TOOSOON for more discussion about this. (Also, to be clear: it's not that everyone with Wikipedia articles has necessarily done 'something special', and being notable is not necessarily a good thing or an achievement. It's just a measure of how much outside coverage a topic has, in sources like books and newspapers.) Have a good day, Gilded Snail (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, it is still too early. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 - this guy could be notable in a few years, but bitcoin millionaires are still something of an ephemeral form of notability and I'm unconvinced there's anything encyclopaedic about him yet. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:TOOSOON. I was sure I was going to vote keep after reading the Forbes article, it really is a solid reference. But, searching for another reference proved fruitless. A speaker at several Chinese conventions, mentions in some blogs, but really nothing else. Surprising. Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article passes GNG for reasons other than a political campaign. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Combs Weinberg[edit]

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

Doesn't pass notability guidelines WP:N or WP:NPOL as she is just a failed candidate for U.S. Senate who never held public office Redditaddict6 9 01:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for office are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. This article (which already appears as a reference in the article) is about her in the context of education issues, not as an unsuccessful political candidate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, that is independent coverage about her, but I'm unsure if a passion for education passes as notability or verifiability. Redditaddict6 9 05:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter what someone is notable for. As long as they have enough coverage to pass GNG, she could be an antique potato chip collector for all I care. Coverage in several RS over time is what shows notability for GNG, not the topic of why they are notable. Heck, many socialites are very notable just for existing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Eastmain pointed out, she was also notable for her educational contributions. I found more sources and added them. It is because of her advocacy that a program for people with dyslexia was started in her area. There are profiles about her and her work. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Megalibrarygirl. I'm certain the article topic meets GNG and your additions make it more clear. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the article creator. I'm a longtime editor who about 7 years ago began to mostly create articles about women who have made significant contributions to the world but have been overlooked on Wikipedia. Weinberg is a long time education activist/advocate in the rural part of the United States. Also, because she was born in the 1940s much of her work and therefore coverage in reliable sources happened before the dawn of the internet. They don't show in a google search. I appreciate that views can vary, and I'm not infallible, but I do understand policy pretty well and seems clear to me that the article meets GNG. There are multiple reliable sources, and I wouldn't have started the article if there wasn't. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a Straw man argument. I recognize that it may pass WP:GNG which is why I didn't include that in the nomination. However, it doesn't pass notability for a biography (WP:N) nor does she pass as a politician (WP:NPOL). She has been an advocate for education for a long time, but that doesn't make her notable. Many candidates for office are activists, but their articles are deleted for a reason: No notability. Redditaddict6 9 04:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article only has to pass GNG full stop. NPOL doesn't need to apply here at all, especially since it's pretty clear that she's more notable as an education advocate as my sources show. Please take a look at the changes, thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Grotberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed candidate for public office, never won : Doesn't pass any notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:NPOL) Redditaddict6 9 01:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsuccessful political candidate with no other notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for office are almost never notable. During the previous deletion discussion some suggested the article should be kept until the election, and removed if he lost. Others asseted major party senate candidates were default notable, which we have rejected more recently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some unsuccessful candidates are notable under WP:GNG, but Dwight Grotberg doesn't seem to have attracted any significant media coverage after the election he lost. Notability has not been shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the political loss, probably not going to meet WP:GNG with a passing mention in AgWeek [28] and some coverage of his opposition to a wind farm [29]. Bakazaka (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a person got so far as to be nominated by a major party to major office, we should be generous with notability, but nothing in WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests we should keep this, and my quick search of local media archives did not surface anything that would change that. LinkTiger (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There is this indepth coverage by The Bismarck Tribune [30] that is related to the election, but not much besides. Merging there would be reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Yeary[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Affiliated with one blue-linked entry, Pine River Capital Management, which appears to be part of a promo walled garden. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, not independent of the subject's company, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/OnceaMetro currently indef blocked as a spam-only account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2018 (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/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A CV-like article on a man with a job. No independent evidence of biographical notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in reliable sources ([31]), but they are just brief mentions about Aaron Yeary managing Pine River Capital Management. Naming him on the company article should be enough. --MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepth independent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks "significant" independent coverage. WP:SIGCOV. doesn't qualify the notability criteria. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ℯ xplicit 06:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kissed by the Blues[edit]

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

Initially prodded for deletion, but deproded by creator. No indication that this album meets WP:NALBUM to justify a stand-alone article. A search for sources gets hits from Amazon and other download sites, but nothing appearing to be any critical reviews, awards or chart listings. Article states album released independently, but no other infomration provided by the label. A release by a major independent label nmight be OK, but if not if this was a self-release by the artist herself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2018 (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/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the singer's article, Angelique Francis, has been PROD'ded but not AfD'ed, which could cause a procedural problem if that article is deleted before this album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was also prodded for deletion, but was deproded by its creator. If you feel the artist's article should be discussed at AfD, you can deprod that article. However, each article is being evaluated separately based upon different notability guidelines (at least that should be the case), so the notabiility (or lack thereof) of one should not have a significant on the notability of the other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every album that exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article. The notability test for albums is specialness, as demonstrated by charting sales, major music awards or at least a GNG-passing volume of critical attention — but none of those things are evident here at all. The musician's notability is a separate matter from the album's, because it's measured in different ways by different types of sourcing, but just for the record her notability as a musician isn't strongly demonstrated either. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the singer if that article stays, else Delete. Not every album that exists is notable, but a plausible search term for the singer (if that article stays). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2018/08/20/one-championship-and-ufc-represent-global-duopoly-in-martial-arts/#772cff5843d4

[2] ttp://www.paipartners.com/mediaitem/pai-partners-acquires-asmodee-group/

[3] ttps://www.ravensburger-gruppe.de/en/about-ravensburger/business-development/index.html

[4] ttp://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2018-0002

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]