Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 August	1 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Your Way Out[edit]

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

No evidence this film has received any actual coverage, in fact, I can find nothing beyond IMDB and unrelated coverage of another similar film. Fails GNG and NFILM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Imdb is not a reliable source and the only IC the article has is from a personal blog. We need better sourcing than this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage, and no real evidence available that it has even been completed/released. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFILM; coverage is so scanty that it's hard to tell if it was even made or not. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, basically no coverage. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 6 September 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. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Archiles[edit]

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

Previously speedily deleted during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Archiles (actor). Recommend salting this article, repeatedly recreated, repeatedly non-notable and very likely completely made up. IMDB is not a reliable source. The fact that https://sites.google.com/site/wwwjohanarchilescom/ appears to be a student homework assignment web page is very telling. Please, no speedy deletion, lets END this nonsense. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt looks like a hoax (here and at IMDb), and borderline unintelligible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also block Ttwqs985. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per nom and previous AfD. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as per nom, previous AfD and CSD XyzSpaniel Talk Page 15:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the article should not be deleted allow it to be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttwqs985 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk I would appreciate it if you please do not post deletion notices

(talk If you return a deletion notice, it will be blocked by a librarian. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttwqs985 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttwqs985 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heaven[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - no indepth coverage from reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage to show passing of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Peter, not a notable person.107.242.117.2 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 1 September 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 redirect to Michael Jackson#1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood. As a compromise between the two most supported options (the keep argument appears to lack supporting evidence); if someone wants to remove the redirect they can try at WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Jackson[edit]

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

Subject has no personal notability, strong case of WP:NOTINHERITED WWGB (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is the son of one of the most notable musicians and has been doing things in the entertainment field. I am in the process of expanding the article, so deleting it would be a mistake. After all, his sister has a page. It makes sense for both Prince and Paris to have pages. Their younger brother however doesn't need a page since he is still a minor and has not started a career just yet. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Jackson#1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood as he is not independently notable (yet) as a musician and notability is not inherited. I am also skeptical of a GNG claim - substantial coverage involve Prince actually has his father as the primary topic in the cases I saw. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Jackson#1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing coverage because his father is so notable does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is completely missing. We don't need article or redirect for every relative's name. Excelse (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and not substantially discussed as his own person in the Michael Jackson article. Let him have privacy. Daask (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According IMDB prince is an actor and a single google search will brings lots of search results about him, thus Redirect to Michael Jackson#1995–1997: HIStory, second marriage, and fatherhood as it is a plausible search term. No need to delete the article as redirects are cheap.--Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC) duplicate !vote de-bolded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I see no reason not to redirect to Michael Jackson; Prince Michael Jackson II redirects there and Paris Jackson probably should as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 8 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Millard[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable by Wikipedia's standards of notability. The (scant) coverage that has been cited is mainly concerning Metafilter, his employer, not the subject of this article. This page should be deleted. DeRossitt (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Dorji (taekwondo)[edit]

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

fails WP:WPMA/N GNG and WP:ANYBIO Dom from Paris (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Also does not meet WP:MANOTE PRehse (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there's no indication of sustained coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Representing Bhutan in the 2018 Asian Taekwondo Championships and the 2018 Asian Games is not sufficient to meet WP:MANOTE and he also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails the GNG, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:MANOTE. Currently ranked #529 in the world[1]. Sandals1 (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above —AE (talk • contributions) 04:27, 8 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jigme Wangchuk (taekwondo)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Also does not meet WP:MANOTE.PRehse (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Representing Bhutan in the 2018 Asian Taekwondo Championships and the 2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games is not sufficient to meet WP:MANOTE and he also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails the GNG, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:MANOTE. Currently ranked #935 in the world.Sandals1 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:53, 8 September 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 Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018. From the headcount it looks like 3 keeps, 4 redirects, 3 delete (at least 1 OK with a merger) and 1 merge, which results in a slight support for removing the article. In terms of strength of argument the mentions in international media support the notion that this wasn't a normal lost-in-the-primary candidacy but there is evidently disagreement on whether tha justifies an article. I don't see a particularly compelling reason to prefer deletion to redirection here and WP:BLP1E doesn't either. Judging whether a political candidate meets BLP1E or whether their coverage will be enduring three days/weeks after the election is hard. The content appears to already exist at the redirect target. With the headcount in mind (there are really no killer arguments here) this is a redirect case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Sonneborn[edit]

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

A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN (and WP:BLP1E). St Anselm (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the major US news outlets in the article, I found articles in the South China Morning Post (https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2159620/election-loophole-ethan-sonneborn-14-isnt-running) Time Magazine (http://time.com/money/5366032/ethan-sonneborn-governor-vermont/) Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/karriere/ethan-sonneborn-14-jaehriger-tritt-bei-gouverneurswahl-in-vermont-an-a-1223020.html) and a whole host of other sources. Meets WP:GNG, and hence has no need to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ross-c (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I considered nominating this for deletion for the same reason done here. But, he is a notable person given how many independent sources are cited here and he is a 14 year old teenager who ran for Governor. He received plenty of coverage on the News and on TV. No reason for deletion when considering these points. Redditaddict6 9 09:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as nominator, per Ross-c. Plenty of significant independent coverage here. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Merge~~ (text already exists at merge target) Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018, as per usual with never-elected candidates. Note how frequent youth novelty candidacies are in the U.S. Meet Shubham Goel, the youngest candidate to contest California gubernatorial election (15 May 2018); William Pearson ’14 Becomes One of Youngest Reps in NH House; UCF Student Youngest Elected to Florida's House of Representatives;Saira Blair was elected at age 18; not to mention Michael Moore, elected to the school board while still a high school student. We even have a List of the youngest state legislators in the United States. Merge this material to the article about the election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) update.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election per E.M.Gregory. Every candidate in every election always gets media coverage, so the notability test for an election candidate is not just "media coverage exists" — because, again, it never, ever doesn't exist. What needs to be shown, rather, is "the volume of coverage has exploded so far beyond the bounds of normal that his candidacy has a credible claim to being special", which is not being shown by the number of footnotes present here. The determining factor is not current newsiness, it's will people still be looking for this article ten years from now — and there's no substantive reason to believe that the answer to that test would be yes. Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: As per the worldwide coverage on his candidacy, his candidacy is special because he is 14. I would say that the evidence posted before you even posted your comment has already solved that potential problem. He clearly passes WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person can technically pass GNG and still fail WP:BLP1E and the ten-year test for enduring significance. Our job is not to keep articles about everybody who happens to get their name into the current news cycle — our job is to keep articles about people who accomplished something significant enough that people will still be looking for an article about them in 2028, like holding a notable political office rather than just running for one and losing and garnering a bit of BLP1E human interest coverage in the moment that fades out as soon as they lose. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but since we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, I think it is difficult to say in this instance whether or not there will be enduring significance. After all, the kid isn't even in high school yet. Who knows what will come in the future? --BrianCUA (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the community treats WP:CRYSTAL the other way - that we don't make assumptions about what the subject may or may not do in the future, or what elections they may or may not win in the future. As I wrote below, any pertinent information about the subject can be placed in the article about the election. Taking a fresh look at the page, there is a case that some of the information could be created in a page entitled Teenage political candidates or something similar that fits under Youth Politics because that is what most of the current content is about. --Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by Enos733, CRYSTAL works the other way. We don't keep articles about people who haven't cleared our notability standards just because of what they might achieve in the future — we would have to keep an article about every single person living on this planet if "but they might accomplish something more notable in the future" were a basis for inclusion in and of itself. Rather, we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and if they do achieve something more notable and encyclopedic in the future, then we permit recreation because the notability equation will have changed. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 as a usual and expected outcome for losing candidates, since all coverage is within the context of the election WP:BLP1E. While there is a certain novelty of a 14 year old running for statewide office, any important information can be added to the page about the election. I do remain convinced that verifiable biographical information can be added to the election pages (more than the frequent one line description and that editors can add additional prose about the context and issues of the campaign). --Enos733 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: As shown by the coverage, he is not just a normal losing candidate and hence normal procedures do not apply. Ross-c (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ross-c, and that is why I didn't create articles for the other two losing candidates. This was not a typical case. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a dispute over whether the nature of coverage is beyond standard NPOL coverage of a candidate's traits and thus Keep/Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 14 year olds are normally not notable, and losing candidates in primary elections are normally not notable. I can't support keeping this article based on the conjunction of these (no matter how unusual), when there is clearly no other claim of notability. I'd reluctantly be OK with a redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worth a mention in the gubernatorial election article. I don't think redirection is proper due to the crystal clear WP:BLP1E failure, more than most losing candidates due to his age (almost all of the sources are "novelty" articles), but the information about his candidacy can be included in other places in the encyclopedia, as mentioned above. SportingFlyer talk 11:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per SportingFlyer. Worth a mention maybe, but this is just WP:TOOSOON. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Err, this was a tough one. At first I was strongly leaning towards keeping. There is a ton of news coverage all over. However, after thinking about this hard and looking into this situation further, I really do think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. He's likely going to receive very little or no news coverage in the near future - it's only this particular event that makes them notable. Of course, if more news coverage does appear about him for another event, we could always restore the article and add the new information, as this would likely mean he would now be considered notable. I really do think we should find some way to merge some more of the content into Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018, though. After all, he did receive a ton of news coverage, and because of this, even if he's not notable enough to have a standalone article, it certainly seems like the page should have more information about him than simply Ethan Sonneborn, high school freshman. But then again, I'm not really sure where the best place to incorporate that information would be. I strongly oppose to deleting the redirect - mostly per WP:CHEAP and just common sense.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SkyGazer 512 How is he different, in the WP:BLP1E context, to John Hinckley Jr.? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Briancua - unfortunately, I haven't had much time to look into that article (and probably won't), but to me it looks like there was news coverage for several different events, although many of them just occurred because of his attempted murder. If you think it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E, feel free to discuss on the talk page or start an merge discussion. Just fyi, there was actually a merge discussion that took place for the page 10 years ago resulting in a consensus not to merge. See here. I apologize if you wanted a more thorough explanation than this. But I will say that articles usually shouldn't be kept or deleted just because other articles exist or don't exist: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok's oppose !vote in the merge discussion explains better than I did why the subject is probably notable: "Not only notable for the assassination attempt but also for his murder trial, which is significant in legal history for the ruling of the insanity verdict." So I would say that article wouldn't be a case of BLP1E.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making an OTHERSTUFF argument. Hinkley is the example used in BLP1E. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His participation - only a few percent of the vote - was not "substantial." SportingFlyer talk 17:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This novelty candidate placed a distant 5th place in the party primary, lagging far behind "blank votes," which came in fourth. His hometown did vote for him. However, I have no objection if User:SkyGazer 512 wants to add some reliable sources to the description of Sonnerbornat the REDIRECT page Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, SportingFlyer, but WP:POLITICIAN says you need to get significant coverage, not a significant number of votes. He did. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL doesn't save it. SportingFlyer talk 18:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't think it fails WP:BLP1E. You have to meet three criteria. The third one doesn't apply here. The event was significant, and his role was well documented. In fact, he got a lot more press than did some of the other candidates. He was also treated as an equal during the campaign.--BrianCUA (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg, merely being in the news for a spell does not grant people a permanent entry in an encyclopedia. Redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 (and while we're at it, Wiki politicos, let's make these skeletal "State elections, xxxx" outlines into actual articles, not bullet-point, poll-result, and endorsement-chart love fests. Did we forget about paragraph structure?) --Animalparty! (talk) 02:40, 1 September 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) 01:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Ray Tracing Competition[edit]

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

Not notable and will likely never gain any coverage anywhere. PROD was declined with an assertion of many GBooks hits, but those are all passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no Ghits, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant, in depth sources found in G News, G News, or via a general Google search. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the passing mentions are very limited. desmay (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to delete have it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleal Walker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only two sources I was able to find that aren't trivial are Omaha South’s Caleal Walker shines in all-star game and Caleal Walker, Omaha South. Runningibis (talk) 20:38, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the two sources that are mentioned above, which are the strongest, there is also [2] [3] [4] [5] plus other, smaller mentions. GNG is met. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of, if not all of the additional links you provided are passing mentions, like stat lines. Runningibis (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - room for improvement for sure, but WP:GNG is at least met and as such deletion is not necessary. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As stated in the nomination, we don't count trivial mentions. Additionally, many of the other hits I found are from non-independent sources like his school or league. Playing in the fledgling Junior Basketball Association of Lavar Ball does not satisfy WP:NHOOPS.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think we should have some notability guidelines for the JBA. As it stands Walker should probably still meet GNG since there are multiple sources covering him in some detail. If you disagree with this, I think it is a good place to apply WP:IAR since we can write a decent article based on the sources available. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No we shouldn’t. The JBA is barely covered in the cities it plays in, let alone nationally. If the profile rises, then we should reconsider. I’ll take a look at GNG for this guy soon and weigh in. Rikster2 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is mostly based off of non-independent sources. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. I wouldn't advocate IAR to violate the WP:NPOV policy.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say anything about not having a neutral article. My point was that if an article can be this well written and sourced, then it should be kept, not that we need to wax poetic about his exploits. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't mention neutrality; I did, per WP:WHYN. If the sources aren't independent, neutrality is a natural concern. Thus, I would not use IAR here as you are advocating.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don’t see the independent, non-routine coverage at the level to satisfy WP:GNG - not on the article and not when I do an independent Google search. Rikster2 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly low notability criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Routine sports reporting is not enough to meet the GNG. Also fails WP:NHOOPS. Sandals1 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 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. already deleted by Cordless Larry as WP:A7: Article about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) closing AfD per WP:NOTBADNAC (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 13:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think. Act. Save.[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to the author's talk page this article has been speedy deleted several times. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've nominated it under A7 (Organised Event), but it also fails notability requirements as the first source isn't reliable/independent, and the latter doesn't really cover it in enough detail, and a second source is probably required under GNG in any case. My own hunt for sources couldn't find anything in reliable sources that had more than a couple of lines. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:A7 - no claim of notability established in article. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:A7 not independently notable. Now that I have merged the content with Students Islamic Organisation of India, I can vote for Delete.--DBig Xrayᗙ 23:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event. Adamtt9 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:01, 1 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

InterfaithFamily[edit]

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

No evidence of notability presented. I get 56 Google hits for "InterfaithFamily" in quotation marks. The article has no references except one external link to the site itself. (I removed two other unrelated external links.) The article looks like an ad, and was originally created by a user named "Micahsachs" which (not coincidentally) is the name of a former employee: [6]. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 6 September 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 GMO Internet, Inc.#Z.com. Strongly consensus that subject matter is already covered, with both NCORP not satisfied and an unneeded CONTENTFORK. If an individual does think that some additional content could be moved then the history will be accessible (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Z.com[edit]

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

Doesn't meet company notability guideline. The article could be re-branded into domain article (Z.com is one of the most expensive single-letter domains according to Tech Asia article). Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMO_Internet,_Inc.#Z.com where the subject is already sufficiently covered. Not independently notable and a separate article is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per K.e.coffman. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 5 September 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 falls on the side of delete on this one, although Daask seems to have an argument to keep, that doesn't appear to be consistent with the other participants' interpretation here. —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locus.sh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Promotional article about a startup that doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; other than funding there doesn't seem to be substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, two articles, spaced two years apart, in The Economic Times seem to point to significant coverage; however, they both seem to be PR pieces. The other sources don't seem to establish notability either. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my comment, it is ambiguous about whether "the other sources" refers to only the sources in the article. I meant it as "all sources I found while searching with various search engines".

Anyway, to go back through the two sources: the 2016 article ("Track your driver real-time with Locus") is a PR piece as far as I can see, and the 2018 article ("This Bangalore-based startup promises to solve all inefficiencies for a logistics company") looks better, although still written in a promotional style (making it not an IS) - "Locus.sh is a state-of-the-art decision-making platform which optimizes logistics operations to provide consistency, efficiency and transparency", for example.

If someone else points out sources that meet CORPDEPTH, I'll definitely reconsider. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification One reason given for relisting was that it was unclear whether the Delete !votes referred to the references within the article or references in general. My !vote above was after a general perusal of sources within the article and sources online. Not forensically extensive not reasonable. Having undergone another search I see no reason to change my !vote at this time. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are weak and fails the criteria of WP:NCORP. Capitals00 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was deleted on 14 August 2018 (UTC). Per this discussion on my talk page (link), I have restored the article and relisted this deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the reasons provided for restoration was Locus.sh has been in operations since 2015 and has received over 200 media validations/articles since it started. Google reports <100 articles for this company for me. They appear to be the normal run-of-the-mill announcements and interviews ranging from fund-raising, interviews with founders, about, etc. Perhaps someone could post some links to articles that they believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you everyone for giving me an opporunity to provide an explaination, credable sources and references for you to reconsider Locus.sh page deletion. I am Pranay from the brand team of Locus, this deletion has effected our brand equity catastrphocally. My sincere efforts will be to provide an explaination, please allow me a day's time. Pranay 0709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a brand vehicle, and this new entry fails to address the previous notability concerns. Celebrating "seating" on Wikipedia or "brand equity damage" due to deletion is a concerning indication that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia and is bordering on a legal threat. The principles would be well advised to consider brand equity damage from failing at gaming Wikipedia. That being said the article still fails inclusion criteria on its own merits for CORPDEPTH. NTK (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References to establish notability

Hi

Thank you once again for allowing me to put forward explanation for reconsideration.

Locus is one of the tops AI startups in the logistics optimization arena with operations mainly in India. It has 75 employees working from the two offices of Locus.sh( www.locus.sh) situated in Bangalore and Mumbai India. When Locus page went live on Wikipedia, and the Locus team, as well as the entire ecosystem, got to know about it, it was considered as the biggest brand success of 2018. After it been deleted, we have been left with absolute embarrassment and brand erosion and hence the attempt of the respected community to consider its restoration. Please note that no given point in Locus tried to use Wikipedia for the company's promotion. It is just a reflection of acknowledgment and indeed notability of Locus brand.

I have done my due diligence to provide the following references and third-party validation for Locus. Locus operations are in Bangalore India but registered in the US. Most of the validation and recommendations are from the Indian context. I am happy to provide further information, clear any doubts or bring more facts and figures that you may find missing in my submission.Locus.sh is founded by Nishith Rastogi who is recognized by Forbes Asia 30 under 30 for the entrepreneurial work at Locus.sh. Locus is recently recognized as AI game changer by NASSCOM. Locus.sh is also the winner of the prestigious Aegis Graham Bell Award for Data Science Innovations. Details enclosed

Locus has indeed appeared in over 200 articles and credible mentions. Happy to provide the complete list for everyone's review. However, the notable ones are provided as follows with complete detail on the publication/mention/other sources/reference awards and recognition.

Once again in all due faith in the respected voters, Wikipedia community, and the contributors. I am proud of Locus and to see my brand being deleted as "Non-Notable" is a huge concern and hence my humble request to all to please do check the content and context provided. I am grateful to each one of you for investing your time in considering Locus's case.

Extended content

2016

Publication: Entrepreneur India

Date: June 16, 2016

Headline: How Two Ex-Amazon Employees Are Helping Startups Like Urban Ladder, Freshmenu With Logistics

Link:https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/277621

About Publication: Entrepreneur India has 1.5 Million Monthly Unique Visitors on their website with a strong offline presence as well. They have a subscription base of 40,000 copies along with traditional, on stands distribution of 25,000 copies. They have a strong Social media presence with 349,302 likes/followers.

Locus being mentioned:: Founded by ex-Amazon employees, Locus Management Platform (Locus) helps local companies and enterprises in courier, e-commerce, food delivery, FMCG and other verticals to optimize their logistics. The startup offers two capabilities to clients - to build - using a cluster of APIs, to enable developers to embed it into their apps, and track delivery using Locus’ platform, and to customize, that large clients can brand for themselves.

Publication: Entrepreneur India

Date: June 17, 2016

Headline: How To Hire Right For A Startup? This Logistics Management Startup Tells Us!

Link: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/277679

About Publication: Entrepreneur India has 1.5 Million Monthly Unique Visitors on their website with a strong offline presence as well. They have a subscription base of 40,000 copies along with traditional, on stands distribution of 25,000 copies. They have a strong Social media presence with 349,302 likes/followers.

Locus being mentioned: : Founded by ex-Amazon employees, Logistics Management Platform (Locus) maintains a really small, yet smart team of 14 people. They plan to take this count to 25 max! Their team has employees who have previously worked with Google and Amazon, a seed round investor and PhD holders.

Publication: ET Tech

Date: October 07, 2016

Headline: Logistics startup Locus is helping ease problems for e-comm and delivery cos

Link:https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/logistics-startup-locus-is-helping-ease-problems-for-e-comm-and-delivery-cos/54727998

About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read the English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. ET Tech is a subdomain of The Economic Times and gets close to 148.99K views per month.

Locus being mentioned: : Locus helps its clients in managing everything from dispatching, route optimization and real-time driver tracking to managing on field workforce to sending SMS alerts to customers.

Some of Locus' other clients include classifieds advertising platform Quickr, logistics company Delivery and eyewear portal Lenskart.

Publication: Outlook Business

Date: November 25 , 2016

Headline: -

Link:https://www.outlookbusiness.com/enterprise/big-idea/automating-logistics-3212

About Publication: With the circulation of over 4,25,000 and monthly website visit of 1.25 Million, Outlook India Outlook is a leading weekly general interest English news magazine published in India.

Locus Quote: Today, the start-up has around 20 clients including Delhivery, FreshMenu, Urban Ladder and others, including five international clients. It follows a pay per delivery model and charges a percentage of the cost savings from its clients.

2017

Publication: BW Disrupt

Date: January 4, 2017

Headline: Locus Enters Healthcare Services. Disrupts Medicine Delivery Starting With 1mg

Link:http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/-Locus-Enters-Healthcare-Services-Disrupts-Medicine-Delivery-Starting-With-1mg-/04-01-2017-110695/

About Publication: BW. Businessworld on Wednesday (30 December) launched a media platform for startups BW DISRUPT to capture the growing buzz of entrepreneurship in the Indian startup ecosystem. It receives around 290.52K monthly visits.

Locus being mentioned: : Locus helps 1mg optimize their deliveries by enabling efficient automation & optimization using their route planning engine for orders, live tracking and visualization on the dashboard using the Locus app. The average distance travelled per rider for every task completed was reduced by 50% by following the routes planned by Locus’ optimization engine.

Publication: TechStory

Date: April 4, 2017

Headline: The Focus Of Locus Is Unpretentious – Become The Largest Logistics Automation Platform

Link: https://techstory.in/locus/

About Publication: Techstory is a media platform that covers stories of inspiring entrepreneurs and businesses that are challenging the norms and changing the rules of the game. With more than 18K followers on facebook, Techstory is one of the reputable tech media platforms.

Locus being mentioned: Currently, Locus’ technology has been adopted by clients from various industries. Locus has several other clients in the pilot phase modeling their logistics operations. Some of their clients include Urban Ladder, Quikr, Lenskart, Licious, etc.

Publication: The New India Express

Date: April 17, 2017

Headline: Locus: Getting tech smart, logistically

Link:http://www.newindianexpress.com/business/2017/apr/17/locus-getting-tech-smart-logistically-1594358.html

About Publication: The Indian Express is a daily newspaper with daily circulation of 309,252 copies. More than 85 years old, The Indian Express has twice won the Vienna-based International Press Institute's India Award for Outstanding Journalism in the Public Interest. It has won every major national journalism award and several international awards, including the Kurt Shorck Award for International Journalism, Natali Prize for Journalism and the International Federation of Journalists - Journalism for Tolerance Prize.

Locus being mentioned: : Spearheading a technological revolution in the logistics industry, Bengaluru-based tech start-up Locus has added a new inter-city dimension to its services. The inter-city feature enables tech support to delivery businesses across the country.Till now, Locus was focusing on intra-city services and with the new launch, it has expanded its reach across the country. In simple terms, Locus brings in digital management to the delivery segment of any business,be it a grocery chain or a cement factory. Instead of having to manually figure out the size of the truck, the load per truck or route management for a delivery, Locus does it using digital technology.

Publication: Mint

Date: May 20, 2017

Headline: 10 standout start-ups taking an AI leap in India

Link:https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/u7M3e5ymwmGf6QRLaXBoAJ/10-standout-startups-taking-an-AI-leap-in-India.html

About Publication: With a circulation of over 1,33,115 (2013 Data), Mint has won 10 Society of Publishers of Asia awards and 10 Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism awards.

Locus being mentioned: Locus has developed route-planning algorithms so companies can chart the best possible route to deliver an order and allow a salesperson to cover the maximum number of points in the shortest time possible. Locus aims to automate all the human decisions involved in sending a package. With clients such as Hindustan Unilever, Quikr, Urban Ladder and Lenskart, it has a lot on its hands.

Publication: CNBC TV (video)

Date: May 29, 2017

Headline: Young Turks | Locus

Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3RZzsLeezc&list=PLjq9mRS1PfGBZaN1e38X2ZmevnU1e1NJs&index=1

About Publication: CNBC TV18 is an English business news TV channel in India. It receives 892.62K monthly visits. CNBC TV18 has got the highest viewership among other English Business News channels according to the BARC viewership data. It has a viewership share of 66% among the top 5 English business-news channels.

Locus being mentioned: : Locus counts Urban ladder, Delhivery, Quikr and Bigbasket as its clients. It’s proprietary algorithms help companies dispatch, track and manage their on-field workforce efficiently bringing anywhere between 25%-50% efficiency in deliveries.

Publication: BW Disrupt

Date: June 14, 2017

Headline: Locus Scoops Out 8% from Bengal’s Rollick Ice Cream’s Logistics Costs

Link:http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/Locus-Scoops-Out-8-from-Bengal-s-Rollick-Ice-Cream-s-Logistics-Costs/14-06-2017-120145/

About Publication: BW. Businessworld on Wednesday (30 December) launched a media platform for startups BW DISRUPT to capture the growing buzz of entrepreneurship in the Indian startup ecosystem. It receives around 290.52K monthly visits.

Locus being mentioned: : Rollick uses Locus for planning their daily delivery to distributors all over West Bengal. With a quick turnaround-time, Locus’ engine shaves 2 to 3 hours off the planning time.

Publication: Business Today

Date: June 18, 2017

Headline: Going, Going, Gone: Automation can lead to unprecedented job cuts in India

Link:https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/cover-story/going-going-gone/story/253260.html

About Publication: Business Today has been ranked the most-read Business Magazine in IRS 2017 with a total readership of 13.15 lakh.

Locus Quote: Start-ups such as Bangalore-based Locus use AI to make everything - from dispatching to the routes a trucker takes - much smarter.

Publication: Money Control

Date: November 23, 2017

Headline: Global Entrepreneurship Summit: Here's the success story of Locus

Link:https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/startup/global-entrepreneurship-summit-heres-the-success-story-of-locus-2446067.html

About Publication: Moneycontrol.com is an Indian online business news website with a monthly reach of over 53.42Miliion. It is arguably becoming India's biggest store of news (text and videos), analysis, data and tools on investing (across diverse asset classes), personal finance, the business sector and the economy.

Locus being mentioned: : Locus' proprietary algorithms help companies dispatch, track and manage their on-field workforce efficiently bringing anywhere between 25 to 50 per cent efficiency to the delivery vertical.

2018

Publication: ET Rise

Date: January 22, 2018,

Headline: This Bangalore-based startup promises to solve all inefficiencies for a logistics company

Link:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/features/this-bangalore-based-startup-promises-to-solve-all-inefficiencies-for-a-logistics-company-locus-sh/articleshow/62599603.cms

About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. ET Rise is a product of The Times Internet group that covers startup stories.

The website gets close to 34.76M views per month.

Locus being mentioned: : Locus.sh is a state-of-the-art decision-making platform which optimizes logistics operations to provide consistency, efficiency and transparency. The startup aims to deliver transformational value in logistics by solving complex problems such as load balancing, route optimization and container utilization.

Publication: e27

Date: 29 March, 2018

Headline: Beenext-funded logistics automation startup Locus.sh expanding to Southeast Asia

Link:https://e27.co/beenext-funded-logistics-automation-startup-locus-sh-expanding-southeast-asia-20180329/

About Publication: e27 is Asia's largest Tech media platform. e27's publishing arm produces content that covers news on funding, startup and entrepreneur profiles, product reviews, resource and thought leadership pieces

Locus being mentioned: : Locus.sh, an Indian startup which provides a platform for enterprises to manage intra-city logistics for scheduled and on-demand deliveries with data analytics capabilities, is expanding operations into Southeast Asia.

Publication: Business Standard

Date: June 25, 2018

Headline: Logistics solutions provider Locus targets two million orders a day by 2019

Link:https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/logistics-solutions-provider-locus-targets-two-million-orders-a-day-by-2019-118062400722_1.html

About Publication: Business Standard is the third largest Indian English-language daily newspaper. It reaches readers in over 1,000 towns and cities across India.

Locus being mentioned: : While there are players in the industry who offer Enterprise Resource Planning solutions which either solve the ‘knapsack’ problem (load balancing) or the ‘travelling salesman’ (route planning) problem. Locus claims to solve both of these together.

Publication: Tech crunch

Date: June 4, 2018

Headline: India’s Locus raises $4M to expand its logistics management service worldwide

Link:https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/03/locus-raises-4m/

About Publication: TechCrunch is an American online publisher of technology industry news. It reports on the business of tech, tech news, analysis of emerging trends in tech, and profiling of new tech businesses and products. Crunch base has more than 2 million users accessing each month and more than 50,000 active contributors.

Locus being mentioned: : Today, Locus is focused on helping customers optimize the operational side of their logistics, whether that is moving people, goods or more at scale. It doesn’t cover ride-hailing and it isn’t necessarily focused on ensuring the faster route. Instead, it tackles complex challenges such as helping FCMGs optimize travel for their management — the key focus being on spending as much time in stores for meetings — or helping organizations move large orders by figuring out how many trucks are needed, which routes are optimal, etc.

Publication: Analytics India

Date: Feb 9, 2017

Headline: Start up of the week | Locus: Driving logistics with data-driven algorithms

Link:https://www.analyticsindiamag.com/start-up-of-the-week-locus-driving-logistics-with-data-driven-algorithms/

About Publication: With more than 250 expert contributors and 622K+ monthly visitors Analytics India Magazine is dedicated to passionately championing and promoting the analytics ecosystem in India.

Locus being mentioned: Founded in mid 2015 by Geet Garg and Nishith Rastogi, graduates from IIT & BITS Pilani, Locus provides a single platform which optimize logistics operations to provide consistency, efficiency and transparency. Built to fit any business model, their main USP is that their solution works on ground and factors in real world conditions. Supporting 100s of exception scenarios & constraints to provide the best possible solution, the platform is also customizable

and scalable.

Publication: Economic Times

Date: June 4, 2018

Headline: Logistics optimisation platform Locus raises $4M funding

Link:https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/logistics-optimisation-platform-locus-raises-4m-funding/64444012

About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017.

Locus being mentioned: : Locus has automated logistics for companies like Urban Ladder, Tata Group of Companies, Droplet, Licious, Lenskart and others. It was founded in mid-2015 by Nishith Rastogi and Geet Garg who worked together at Amazon.

Publication: Plunge Daily

Date: Jan 22, 2018

Headline: The focus of the company is to be the entire tech stack of a logistics companyIN CONVERSATION Not relying on jugaad, Bangalore-based startup Locus.sh aims to monitor 1% of the world’s transport movement.

Link:https://mybigplunge.com/video/locus-sh-bangalore-based-logistics-management-startup/

About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017.

Locus Quote: Locus has automated logistics for companies like Urban Ladder, Tata Group of Companies, Droplet, Licious, Lenskart and others. It was founded in mid-2015 by Nishith Rastogi and Geet Garg who worked together at Amazon.

Awarder: NASSCOM

Date: 2018

Award: AI Game Changer Award, For Innovative Application of AI

Link: -

About Presenter: NASSCOM is a trade association of Indian Information Technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. It is a global trade body with over 2000 members, of which over 250 are companies from China, EU, Japan, the U.S. and the UK.

Publication: pi Ventures Blog

Date: June 4, 2018

Headline: Our Investment in Locus: Automating Logistics using AI

Link: http://www.piventures.in/blog/our-investment-in-locus-automating-logistics-using-ai

About Pi Ventures: pi Ventures is an early stage fund focused on investing on disruptive ideas leveraging machine learning, AI and IoT. It has invested in healthcare and energy efficiency startups like Sigtuple, NIRAMAI Health Analytics, Ten3T and Zenatix.

Awarder: AEGIS

Date: February 23, 2018

Award: AEGIS Graham Bell Awards 2017 under the category ‘Data Science’

Link:http://bellaward.com/locus-announced-winner-8th-edition-aegis-graham-bell-awards/

About Presenter: The Aegis Graham Bell Award is one of the largest innovation award for the ICT domain in India. The Award is organized with support of the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), and Telecom Centres of Excellence (TCOE), Convergence India and Deloitte as a knowledge partner.

Pranay 0709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the long list of sources in your comment so that the discussion remains readable. Mz7 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote goes for restoration of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akanksha2153 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the !vote above is Akanksha2153's first contribution to Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote goes to the restoration of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek.010789 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the !vote above is Abhishek.010789's first contribution to Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be restored in all good faith. Locus.sh is a notable AI startup of India and looks like they have done decent work in bringing India's AI capabilities in supply chain to the world. my vote is to restore the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshitijsethi (talk • contribs) 09:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kshitijsethi: The article has not been deleted yet. "Restoring" is for deleted article only. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#I've come across Locus.sh at a conference before. I must say that the company has immense potential to revolutionize the logistic areana with their algorithms. A fine bunch of people are working day and night and have managed to build quite an amazing product. I strongly believe that this page must be restored headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheabennyzacharias (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the !vote above is Rheabennyzacharias's first contribution to Wikipedia.Vexations (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION The intent of the article is clearly to promote the company and its products. Pranay 0709 who self-identifies as from the brand team of Locus [7] writes that the deletion has left us with serious brand erosion and repercussions across our ecosystem. [8] Well, we don't care. We're an encyclopedia. Notable companies don't need a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia needs articles (about notable subjects), not the other way around. If a brand suffers from NOT having an article, then it shouldn't have one. The number of sources is artificially inflated, and for the most part, those sources are redundant. Seven sources for "They raised $2.75 million in 2016 through series A funding and $4 million in 2018 through Pre-series B funding" is ridiculous. The recognition section is absurdly inflated. For example, "Locus was featured in the Top 100 Startups To Watch in 2017." is sourced to an "article" on the website of a "Recruitment Specialist", sutrahr.com. The Aegis Graham Bell Award in the Data Science category is a non-notable award by a school and the Forbes ’n Under n’ a perennial source of non-notable people is not an award the company has received. After removing all the inappropriate content, like the list of customers, funding rounds, job descriptions and other companies the founders were involved in, almost nothing would be left. If this company somehow manages to make an impact and actually achieve its stated goal to automate all the human decisions involved in sending a package, there will likely be sufficient in-depth, independent reporting to write an encyclopedic article.
The socking, failure to properly declare a CoI and failure acknowledge paid contributions gives me no confidence that it is possible to maintain a neutrally worded article about this company. Vexations (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay has not submitted the article of Locus. He has certainly though made the request for restoration. I see a totally different user who submitted the article on Wikipedia. I don't understand why can't Pranay raise a request of restoration? Has he any given point in time tried to hide his identity??? Why can't you love the brand you work for and leave no stone upturn to ensure itbis not damaged. We all have every right to share views. I don't agree that all references provided by few folks here are redundant. Here is someone like Pranay who is absolutely honest about his intentions and we are punishing him for being honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.59.78.87 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Locus.sh is a reputed organization and as their references show, they have been covered widely by national media. I think that there is enough evidence to take the content on the page as true and that the page should be restored.igloobuilder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— igloobuilder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the blatant promotional intent above biased me against this article, the sources actually look pretty good, with a number having reasonably focused depth of coverage. See these already-cited articles:

https://www.analyticsindiamag.com/start-up-of-the-week-locus-driving-logistics-with-data-driven-algorithms/
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/track-your-driver-real-time-with-locus/articleshow/54729054.cms
http://bellaward.com/locus-announced-winner-8th-edition-aegis-graham-bell-awards/
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/ridesafe-to-locus-how-this-startup-moved-from-womens-safety-to-helping-track-food-delivery-boys/414649/
https://www.crazyengineers.com/threads/build-great-products-that-solve-np-hard-problems-nishith-rastogi-founder-locussh.90258
https://www.techinasia.com/5-rising-startups-india-may-10-2016

Admittedly, these all have a tone of over-enthusiastic hype, but they seem independent. I, too, feel the desire to delete this just to spite the annoying marketers, but I don't think that's they way we do things. Daask (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.analyticsindiamag.com/start-up-of-the-week-locus-driving-logistics-with-data-driven-algorithms/ The author, Srishti Deoras, is billed as a "Sr. Content Strategist", not an analyst or reporter. So, what does a "Content Strategist" do? Well, one of them describes it as "A content strategist works to understand business goals and user needs, then helps plan, develop and deliver clear, relevant content that brings the two together." ^[1] In other words, the user (Locus) paid analyticsindiamag to write an "article" to meet Locus' business needs. analyticsindiamag is anything but an independent source. It's been bought and paid for by the subject of the article. If you like, I can go through the other sources, but I think you get the point: the sources are promotional and not independent. Vexations (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.laneterralever.com/what-does-a-content-strategist-do/

Reply to Vexations Since you have mentioned about the author of the article, I would like you to reach out to the senior editorials at Analytics India Magzine to confirm that article is not a paid one. Here is the Linkedin profile of the author https://www.linkedin.com/in/srishti-deoras-b93349b6/ , feel free to reach out to her and clarify your doubts. Also, your claim of all our sources being paid doesn't hold ground since the media conglomerates in question are market leaders in their respective genre. Companies like Times Group(Economic Times), Tech Crunch, Business Standard, etc. are global names with significant heritage. I would be glad to share all the details for these publications so that you can reach out to them and clarify your doubts. Pranay 0709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Does Analytics India Magazine have (published) editorial guidelines? Let's see them. Remember, this is a company that says about itself "Want to advertise with us? Or find out how else we can work with your brand?" "Work with your brand" Hmmm... Is Analytics India Magazine an independent, reliable source? Of course not, reliable sources don't "work with your brand". Vexations (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite trivia but below the required standard for notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more discussion from established editors about the sources Daask has presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed Daask's sources:
  1. Analytics India: Content is not intellectually independent. This article is a piece of churnalism with no independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. The issue of the author describing herself as a "Sr. Content Strategist" is moot.
  2. The Economic Times: Borderline, but not intellectually independent. This article is better than the Analytics India article since the source is a more established publication and the writer also interviews one of the company's clients. Otherwise, it suffers from the same problems.
  3. Aegis Graham Bell Awards: Doesn't offer significant coverage. The award itself is of questionable notability, since I can't find any sources (except press releases) covering it.
  4. The Financial Express: Not intellectually independent. Same problems as the Analytics India article.
  5. Crazy Engineers: Not reliable or independent. User-generated content (social networking site) consisting of interview with company founder.
  6. Tech in Asia: Not significant. This listicle briefly mentions the company's description and funding in 5 short sentences.

— Newslinger talk 08:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failure of both WP:NOT (promotion, in this case, which is policy) and substantially WP:N. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi Guys, I think you are having a biased opinion because I work with the brand team at Locus. There are around 40 references in total on the page and this discussion, still you guys are stuck on 5 references which is like having 12% information at hand. Try to understand the fact that if I have to make the wiki page for promotional purposes I would have added more glamour to the content, if you actually read the article it's just the information about what Locus is & does. We have been covered by some of the leading media publications so far, have a look at the references below.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] If you think these references are also paid in nature then I must say this a biased decision against Locus, as Daask has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranay 0709 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Publication: ET Tech Date: October 07, 2016 Headline: Logistics startup Locus is helping ease problems for e-comm and delivery cos Link: https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/logistics-startup-locus-is-helping-ease-problems-for-e-comm-and-delivery-cos/54727998 About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read the English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. ET Tech is a subdomain of The Economic Times and gets close to 148.99K views per month. Locus being mentioned: : Locus helps its clients in managing everything from dispatching, route optimization and real-time driver tracking to managing on field workforce to sending SMS alerts to customers. Some of Locus' other clients include classifieds advertising platform Quickr, logistics company Delivery and eyewear portal Lenskart.
^ Publication: Outlook Business Date: November 25 , 2016 Headline: - Link: https://www.outlookbusiness.com/enterprise/big-idea/automating-logistics-3212 About Publication: With the circulation of over 4,25,000 and monthly website visit of 1.25 Million, Outlook India Outlook is a leading weekly general interest English news magazine published in India. Locus Quote: Today, the start-up has around 20 clients including Delhivery, FreshMenu, Urban Ladder and others, including five international clients. It follows a pay per delivery model and charges a percentage of the cost savings from its clients.
^ 2017 Publication: BW Disrupt Date: January 4, 2017 Headline: Locus Enters Healthcare Services. Disrupts Medicine Delivery Starting With 1mg Link:http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/-Locus-Enters-Healthcare-Services-Disrupts-Medicine-Delivery-Starting-With-1mg-/04-01-2017-110695/ About Publication: BW. Businessworld on Wednesday (30 December) launched a media platform for startups BW DISRUPT to capture the growing buzz of entrepreneurship in the Indian startup ecosystem. It receives around 290.52K monthly visits. Locus being mentioned: : Locus helps 1mg optimize their deliveries by enabling efficient automation & optimization using their route planning engine for orders, live tracking and visualization on the dashboard using the Locus app. The average distance travelled per rider for every task completed was reduced by 50% by following the routes planned by Locus’ optimization engine.
^ Publication: CNBC TV (video) Date: May 29, 2017 Headline: Young Turks | Locus Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3RZzsLeezc&list=PLjq9mRS1PfGBZaN1e38X2ZmevnU1e1NJs&index=1 About Publication: CNBC TV18 is an English business news TV channel in India. It receives 892.62K monthly visits. CNBC TV18 has got the highest viewership among other English Business News channels according to the BARC viewership data. It has a viewership share of 66% among the top 5 English business-news channels. Locus being mentioned: : Locus counts Urban ladder, Delhivery, Quikr and Bigbasket as its clients. It’s proprietary algorithms help companies dispatch, track and manage their on-field workforce efficiently bringing anywhere between 25%-50% efficiency in deliveries.
^ Publication: e27 Date: 29 March, 2018 Headline: Beenext-funded logistics automation startup Locus.sh expanding to Southeast Asia Link:https://e27.co/beenext-funded-logistics-automation-startup-locus-sh-expanding-southeast-asia-20180329/ About Publication: e27 is Asia's largest Tech media platform. e27's publishing arm produces content that covers news on funding, startup and entrepreneur profiles, product reviews, resource and thought leadership pieces Locus being mentioned: : Locus.sh, an Indian startup which provides a platform for enterprises to manage intra-city logistics for scheduled and on-demand deliveries with data analytics capabilities, is expanding operations into Southeast Asia.
^ Publication: Tech crunch Date: June 4, 2018 Headline: India’s Locus raises $4M to expand its logistics management service worldwide Link:https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/03/locus-raises-4m/ About Publication: TechCrunch is an American online publisher of technology industry news. It reports on the business of tech, tech news, analysis of emerging trends in tech, and profiling of new tech businesses and products. Crunch base has more than 2 million users accessing each month and more than 50,000 active contributors. Locus being mentioned: : Today, Locus is focused on helping customers optimize the operational side of their logistics, whether that is moving people, goods or more at scale. It doesn’t cover ride-hailing and it isn’t necessarily focused on ensuring the faster route. Instead, it tackles complex challenges such as helping FCMGs optimize travel for their management — the key focus being on spending as much time in stores for meetings — or helping organizations move large orders by figuring out how many trucks are needed, which routes are optimal, etc.
^ Awarder: NASSCOM Date: 2018 Award: AI Game Changer Award, For Innovative Application of AI Link: https://d24cdstip7q8pz.cloudfront.net/t/t20171228172458/content/common/images/nasscom.png About Presenter: NASSCOM is a trade association of Indian Information Technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. It is a global trade body with over 2000 members, of which over 250 are companies from China, EU, Japan, the U.S. and the UK.
^ Publication: ET Rise Date: January 22, 2018, Headline: This Bangalore-based startup promises to solve all inefficiencies for a logistics company Link:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/features/this-bangalore-based-startup-promises-to-solve-all-inefficiencies-for-a-logistics-company-locus-sh/articleshow/62599603.cms About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. ET Rise is a product of The Times Internet group that covers startup stories. The website gets close to 34.76M views per month. Locus being mentioned: : Locus.sh is a state-of-the-art decision-making platform which optimizes logistics operations to provide consistency, efficiency and transparency. The startup aims to deliver transformational value in logistics by solving complex problems such as load balancing, route optimization and container utilization.
^ Publication: Economic Times Date: June 4, 2018 Headline: Logistics optimisation platform Locus raises $4M funding Link:https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/logistics-optimisation-platform-locus-raises-4m-funding/64444012 About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. Locus being mentioned: : Locus has automated logistics for companies like Urban Ladder, Tata Group of Companies, Droplet, Licious, Lenskart and others. It was founded in mid-2015 by Nishith Rastogi and Geet Garg who worked together at Amazon.

Comment I've looked at the new sources and it strikes me that those arguing to Keep haven't gotten their heads around the concept of "Intellectual Independence" as per WP:ORGIND. It states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

Looking at the examples above:

This India Times reference contains nothing that resembles "original and independent opinion/analyis/investigation/etc" that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Fails ORGIND.
This Outlook Business reference, is an unbiased and unashamed promotional piece based entirely on interviews with the CEO and their VC backers. This article fails for the same reasons as above.
This Business World reference is a press release. Here's another website with the exact same headline and quotations. Fails ORGIND.
The YouTube clip from CNBC is entirely promotional, based in a large part of an interview with a founder and is not intellectually independent, fails ORGIND.
This e27.co reference is based on an interview with a founder, is not intellectually independent, fails ORGIND.
This TechCrunch reference is based on a company announcement about raising $4m in a funding round; as are these other references that have all used the same source announcement - Livemint, Thie Hindu Business Line, Times of India, Trl News, etc. Fails ORGIND.
An award from NASSCOM. One of 50 handed out. Not a significant award. Here's SetuServ Informatics Pvt Ltd boasting about having the exact same award. Fails CORPDEPTH.
This Economic Times of India reference is entirely based on an interview with founders, is not intellectually independent, fails ORGIND
Thie ET Tech reference is the same as #6 above and fails for the same reasons.

In addition, it is clear to me that this company is attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion and/or advertising. Having one-off accounts !vote here doesn't help your case for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delina Filkins[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Source 1 only mentions her name and does not go in-depth about her, I wonder how reliable source 2 (grg table, only says name and age) is and source 3 consists of the confirmation that she's dead and the usual pointless trivia, which (the trivia) is also featured in the Biography section of this article. This is a WP:BIO1E page. If someone wants to keep it it can be merged into List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States » Shadowowl | talk 19:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG due to lacking significant reliable sources. Brief mentions of her in the first two sources are both insignificant and I to doubt the reliability of the GRG table in source two, since the GRG has, among other things, verified some claims in the past only to withdraw them at a later time. The article also fails WP:LISTEN because there is no significant coverage demonstrating that being the first verified person to reach 112 and 113 years old is notable. The longevity trivia in the article like having kids and making cheese in source three also adds nothing of encyclopedic value. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Source 1 is useless and gives a whole ONE sentence mention about her. Source 2, while reliable (according to the WOP wikiproject), tells us nothing except for name, age and country. Source 3 is a WP:ROUTINE obituary and the photo gallery source (listed in the see also section for some reason) would be unreliable since we have no idea where that section on her came from. Did someone from the GRG write that or is it a plagiarized? Either way, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:14, 3 September 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factor (Scotland)[edit]

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

This article appears to be bordering on a dictionary definition of the term that seems to be synonymous with property manager. It seem like this should best be a redirect to property manager and/or merged with Property management. Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not advocate deletion. An act was passed in 2011 -- the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 and there's plenty of specific coverage of that out there. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, stop this disruption immediately. AFD is a valid venue for discussion of redirecting a title to a separate article, as I have pointed out to you on multiple occasions over the last few months. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Scottish factor is integral to the history of the Highland clearances and modern estate management in Scotland. There is ample material that can be put in the article, including notable factors (mostly, unfortunately, notorious characters) an explanation of the duties carried out and the type of person who was employed in this work. There are potential sources such as "Turmoil among the crofters:Evander McIver and the ‘Highland Question’, 1873–1903" by Annie Tindley and Eric Richards in The Agricultural History Review - there are many other mentions of the role in more accessible works and there is at least one biography of a Highland factor (Richards, Eric (1999). Patrick Sellar and the Highland Clearances: Homicide, Eviction and the Price of Progress. Edinburgh: Polygon. ISBN 1 902930 13 4). Whilst the article is clearly deficient as it stands, the solution is to put some better material in it.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is: How is a factor in Scotland different than a third party property manager elsewhere? I get there was an act passed, but how is it different? Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term factor is not synonymous with property manager, as a property manager is not necessarily legally recognised (whereas a factor is under the laws of Scotland) and does not necessarily have the same legal powers and duties as a factor in Scotland (because Scots law does not apply to the rest of the world, and is indeed a unique cross between common and civil law that has generally not been exported overseas). The topic of factors in Scotland in any event satisfies GNG and is independently notable. There is a large body of literature about factors in Scotland and Scots law (as opposed to the rest of the world). See for example Bell's Commentaries amongst many others. In other words, even if, for the sake of argument, a factor was a property manager in Scotland (which is not admitted), WP:SPINOUT would apply. (This is normally true of any topic that consists of broad topic X in country Y). This page is capable of being expanded beyond a definition. Possibly a title like "Factors in Scots law" or "Factors in Scotland" might be better. We also see this described as "factoring" or a "contract of factory". James500 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party property managers in the US require state licensure in most states, so to say they're not legally recognized is uninformed. I'm not saying that factors aren't passing GNG, rather, they seem to fit the description of a third-party property manager with all the fiduciary obligations of a factor. What is missing? Toddst1 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What is missing?" Looking at the historical aspect, the Highland Factor, as I have tried to explain above, is very much tied up with the management of estates during the huge social disruption of the clearances, and then during the period of massive emigration from that region that extended into the 20th century. As such, among other things, they were involved in a massive piece of social engineering (often devising entire improvement schemes for landlords), they were closely involved in mitigating the Highland potato famine (why was this nothing like as severe as in Ireland?). They were people who had an enormous amount of power over tenants, often over very large tracts of land. Elsewhere in Wikipedia, various articles need a link into something that covers (perhaps in part) the historic role of the Highland factor. An article on the Scottish factor seems to make sense, rather than one just focused on the historical aspect, because one would not want the reader to believe that this role has disappeared. The current property manager article does not currently deal with the subject and, in my opinion, would not read well if it were to cover it adequately, as there would be a confusing mix of different subjects.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Factor is a key term in Scotland, both historically and today (as noted it is spelled out in legislation). I think the article could be improved to cover historical usage (eg in the Highland Clearances as outlined above, but also the office of burgh or city factor who was in charge of council housing might be mentioned). Dunarc (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very significant term in Scottish history and far more can be written about it than a simple dicdef. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 4 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Silverman[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The only SNG that might apply is NCREATIVE and there is no indication he meets anything there John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 31 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) 19:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-market local radio personalities are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, but this is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:GNG. Of the three footnotes here, #1 is a blog and #2 is his own staff profile on the website of his own employer, neither of which are notability-assisting sources at all — and while the third is an actual article in a real newspaper, it's in the local newspaper and it exists solely in the context of him buying a house rather than the context of anything potentially noteworthy about his career as a broadcaster. So that's not enough coverage to magically vault him over GNG all by itself as the only acceptable source in play. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing shows that the GNG, or any other notability standard, is met.Sandals1 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrees A. Lamptey[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in the article nor was any found in a Google news search. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTYET The director's films do not seem to be notable, and I cannot find references in reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly very early days. I cant find much either. scope_creep (talk) 15:28, 5 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Oz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are very, very brief mentions, name listed only, example of work, or press releases. reddogsix (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recent interview/profile in local paper (Hebrew) - here. There are two individuals with more coverage with the same name - The Chairman of one of Israel's leading credit card companies (who may possibly meet GNG), and a ice hockey player (no idea if he would meet enwiki's hockey notability guideline) - which was incorrectly inter-wiki linked to dewiki entry (ruwiki exists as well). The startup entrepreneur (one of the co-founders of Big Band - a big success, and various small startups) - does not meet GNG per what I see.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 4 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UNCAF U-19 Tournament squads[edit]

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

per WP:NOT - This doesn't seem to be a prominent-enough tournament to justify this level of coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All listed people are non-notable per WP:NFOOTY so this article fails WP:NOTSTATS Hhkohh (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:46, 3 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Tait[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this athlete entering college.

The claim of being the first female from the Northwest Territories to play for a U Sports Basketball team is almost trivial, and contradicted by one of the sources. Coverage is local and WP:MILL for high-school athletes entering college sports programs in North America. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claims of notability, not a significant high school athlete either to merit a page, just your average run of the mill college athlete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most collegiate basketball players are not notable. Even fewer are notable before they even play.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the first woman from the NWT to play varsity basketball at the Canadian university level is not, in and of itself, an inclusion freebie in the absence of any actual awards or distinctions that would get her past WP:ATHLETE the normal way — "first woman, LGBT, person of colour, person from this particular place as opposed to that one, etc., ever to do this otherwise not inherently notable thing" is not an instant free pass to greater notability than everybody else who's doing that same non-notable thing. And, for that matter, one of the sources here states that she's one of the first varsity athletes from the NWT, not that she's the trailblazing first-ever — which is even less of a valid notability claim. But the sourcing, which consists of one article in the local newspaper of where her university is, one article in the local CBC North bureau covering her hometown (which is not the same thing as the CBC's national news division) and an internet radio stream which counts for all of exactly nothing toward ever establishing the notability of anybody, is not strong enough to pass WP:GNG. People do not automatically get into Wikipedia just because they've gotten a bit of "local girl does stuff" human interest coverage in their own local media, but nothing here demonstrates a reason why she could be considered a notable athlete. Creator's username also suggests a possible conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Likely COI, but the reason to delete is a failure to meet either the GNG or WP:NHOOPS. I think Bearcat's explanation sums it up nicely.Sandals1 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 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) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attached Department[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF of a generic term as used by the Punjab government. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative department. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is correct, doesn't seem more than a used term in a BEFORE check. Is a straight-forward example of DICDEF and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia. No evident redirect location. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - obvious. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:07, 4 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

007 (game)[edit]

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

A rock-paper-scissors variant. The references are primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are wikis and a blog. Article does not try to establish notability. I can't really find any coverage indicating this is a cultural phenomenon, so does not meet WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the connection to James Bond, the notability of this game is still weak.TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Ceccaroni[edit]

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

fails WP:WPMA/N and GNG has never won a registered fight. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as he has been in multiple competitions and took part in Olympic qualifications. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Olympic qualifiers that you failed to progress through don't pass the WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG bars. And there's no media coverage, so no suggestion of WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Also does not meet WP:MANOTE PRehse (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't include that mainly because I'm actively involved in a push to revise WP:MANOTE but that's true. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same one.PRehse (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I meant WP:MMANOT apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Olympic qualifications do not count. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article's only source shows that he has never won a fight at a senior level competition. Losing in the opening round of the world championships does not show notability. He's not ranked in the top 100 for either the world rankings or Olympic qualifying.[9]Sandals1 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked tweets[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT, especially since BTS took over half of the entries. Fully WP:OR. No assertion of notability for the list per WP:LISTN. — JFG ^talk 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is WP:OR. The half that isn't BTS is Barack Obama. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:LISTN. wumbolo ^^^ 09:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aisteco (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NCWP | Talk 12:57, 2 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Church, Wiikwemkoong[edit]

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

Withdrawn Fails GNG. Only two sources in article, WP:BEFORE finds little else. Some sources are available for it being the mission that priest George Epoch was transferred to and died at; but notability is not inherited. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A historically significant building; a 150+ year old church in Northern Ontario, constructed by a group of people who an important role in the history of not only the area, its people, but also the history of Canada. Although, it being in Northern Ontario does lend itself to less publicity than more populated places in Canada, I'm really surprised that this is being nominated. Pjposullivan (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have improved the article significantly.On the other hand, it might indeed be historically significant but the sourcing is very thin, as in it takes some sleuthing to draw together its history, and the facts are not easily found without extraction. The sources are mostly tiny tidbits. Which is to say, it lacks decent SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the TVO source you added, which is SIGCOV, so I am ok to withdraw. Good job on finding that!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 5 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanarus Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP by a mile or so.Non-notable medical-service-provider. ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the two working refs are press releases. There is nothing independent and reliable here. The recent history of COI and copy vio editing probably hasn't helped, but there is nothing here, or in past versions of the article that get close to notability. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree and likely needs "salting" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass gng Wolfson5 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not close to passing WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 5 September 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 redirect to Helena Blavatsky. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophers and Philosophicules[edit]

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

A page about a non-notable six page article in a Theosophy journal, similar to "Occult or Exact Science." The page has relatively extensive references, but the only thing that specifically addresses the article itself is a section of a 2009 PhD thesis by Arnold Kalnitsky - everything else is simply support for statements about Theosophy or philosophy in general. I suggest a delete and a redirect to Helena Blavatsky. --tronvillain (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Helena Blavatsky - this looks like WP:FANCRUFT to me. With no independent notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 31 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hume Building Products[edit]

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. References are to their own website, trivial mentions, or are promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was in the middle of doing this when I got distracted. Let me add that current article leans in the promotional/advertising direction despite some improvements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The article is no more "promotional" than similar articles for related companies like Boral. External citations are from solid sources - eg aoweibang.com article is not at all "in passing", AFR notes it is a "growing company" etc. SGREditor (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a growing company is not a criteria for notability per WP:NCORP - every company is growing in their press releases that are churned or in random listings. Run of the mill company with no significant coverage and analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Galobtter. There's no evidence that this firm is notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 7 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TG Keerthi Kumar[edit]

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

No references that are both independent and non-trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:52, 31 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juche-Capitalism[edit]

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

An entirely WP:OR idea that no reliable source has ever mentioned. A WP:BATTLEGROUNDish WP:POVFORK following multiple reverts at the article Juche. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* insert; It uses the same sources like the Juche article on wikipedia. The accusations made for Juche-capitalism article applies also for the current Juche article. The Juche-Capitalism article is quite neutral and the only article on Juche that makes some sense based on the sources provided by both parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JucheCapitalist (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC) this user has been blocked as sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clear OR & soapboxing by an obvious agenda account. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I would like to add some evidence supporting a pattern of soapboxing what may politely be referred to as a fringe theory, in addition to a pattern of behavior suggesting a less than reasonable position. However the evidence comes from another wiki, RationalWiki to be precise, and I am unsure if it would be admissible here. Comrade GC (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

insert Juche-Capitalism; but delete Juche. State sources and other sources used in the Juche article are not reliable and doesn't prove anything, because Juche is described as a man centered ideology(even by state sources) and by Juche-capitalism and therefore can be regarded as an anti-state ideology. Therefore the Juche article on wikipedia needs to be deleted before everything else in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JucheCapitalist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is very clearly not a real thing as a search on Google Scholar will show. Sources are terrible and don't actually support the article content. Fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable term, no supporting references. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOT delete there is plenty of references on the Internet. A job well done, User:JucheCapitalist. It is very difficult to write about Juche...when one is worried about those commie socialists intellectual state propagandists slaves trying to delete, invert and pervert everything that reassembles the truth!— Preceding unsigned comment added by KimYaJong (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC) KimYaJong !vote struck as sock-puppet of JucheCapitalist power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Juche is a thing like a donkey is a thing. Capitalism is a thing like the moon is a thing. "Juche-Capitalism" is not a thing like "donkey-moon" or "moon-donkey" is not a thing. It is complete and utter bollocks. Furthermore the search links demonstrate that it is not bollocks of any notable kind. Google Scholar suggests that the phrase was used once, in 1998, and then failed to attract any further interest. There is nothing to suggest that what is written here even has anything to do with what was spoken about in 1998. This is much more likely to be the author's own invention. Speedy delete as unverifiable, as almost certain hoax, as vandalism, as trolling, and as an egregious waste of everybody's time. Surely, even the sockpuppets must have better things to do than this? Also, a few parts seem to be plagiarised from here. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a fake ideology not used elsewhere, complete contradiction with the two words, even if the ideology existed, article would quite easily fail WP:NOTE. JDuggan101 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem significant in any way via sources or searches. So delete JC7V-constructive zone 17:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jaundiced ideology created by a dictator, seems to conflate capitalism with anarchy. Not a good thing to mix. scope_creep (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think it is fake ideology. --Garam (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Reads like a rather blatant WP:HOAX - particularly the bottom half of the present article. Kim Il-sung was an avowed Marxist, and he did not "In 1956, Kim Il-sung declared Juche-capitalism to be the guiding principle of the economy but he faced armed resistance from marxists and nationalists, which resulted in 10 000 of dead Marxists[9]. Marxists supported by the Soviet Union and China stormed in 1956 privately owned means of productions that were already protected by Juche-Capitalists private armies.". he did however declare Juche in the same year (while being subsidized heavily by the Soviet Union and China). I could sorta imagine Kim Jong-un or his successor going the Juche-Capitalist route (and maybe retconning matters back to Kim) - but that hasn't seem to happen yet (at least per what comes out of North Korea and gets reported in RS).Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once I finish laughing. Does Wikipedia have a repository for most ridiculous hoax pages? Because if so this should get stored there. Otherwise yeah, this is obviously nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWDelete or SPEEDY this HOAX. Page creator User:JucheCapitalist has been blocked as a sockpuppet. (I thought the text was a pretty funny satire.) But it's got to be deleted, now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Inclusion: Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 1 September 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. No support for deletion. Merge proposals can be made on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Clark Bridge[edit]

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

An unremarkable highway bridge was built, named, grew old, and was torn down after a replacement was built. The End. Coverage doesn't get much more routine than that. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with development to clarify the article covers the historic bridge and current Camano Gateway Bridge (which redirects). Search on that term too. It could be moved to current bridge name, and revised so historic bridge is covered in a section. Or what list-article could this be merged to? It appears to be major infrastructure. —Doncram (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:11, 3 September 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) 12:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major infrastructure projects are usually notable. Bridges that are the sole connection of an island community - in this case the 15k souls on Camano, Washington, tend to be notable as well. Seems there is coverage.[10][11][12]Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An ordinary plate girder highway bridge is only "major" in the land of WP inclusionism. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on account of its historical value. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge with the Camano Gateway Bridge. The three bridges to Camano Island have been well-documented with local sources and received wider regional mentions on occasion, mostly during the reconstruction campaign. Sounder Bruce 00:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram and Icewhiz. Major infrastructure. Something that lasted sixty years is not 'routine', it is once in a lifetime for most people. James500 (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is utter bullocks. I drive to work every day over a completely anonymous highway bridge of the same type which is older than I am: heck, there is another nameless bridge further north which is probably pushing ninety! It's routine that highway bridges last a long time; it's the ones that fail that acquire notability through notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 4 September 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. User:Ivanvector has already speedy deleted the page per criterion G3 - a blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dangerman[edit]

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

The creator keeps removing CSD tags from this on the grounds (for example) that an instagram page about the subject is an RS.

This needs speedy deletion and salting. As there is no evidsacen of notabilty, really fanstatic calims, and most of the souces do not even mention the subject (or seem to be anything more then genuine scientific papers misapplied to grant spurious support.

Simply riddled with OR, weasel words and puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedily delete as an affront to everything from WP:BLP to half the clauses in WP:NOT. WP is not the place to write a stupid joke article about your buddy. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, I now it is not Christmas but even so, how has this lasted this long?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can close this as it has been deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 31 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dashama Konah Gordon[edit]

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

PROD removed, IP added extensive promotional edits with poor sourcing. PROD reason was: "poorly sourced BLP, and subject does not seem to be notable." The added references are to non-RSes. A quick WP:BEFORE shows four GNews hits total on "Dashama Konah Gordon", and GNews hits on "Dashama" are generally not of the subject or not in RSes. This should be deleted. David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost all of the references listed are not independent or reliable - directories, social media, IMDb, primary websites, press releases, etc. This is purely promotional, as evidenced by the extensive use of puffery. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's enough material here at least for a notable stub. A ton of cleanup is required to get rid of all the obvious WP:PROMO content, but an article needing serious work is not grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is flooded with mostly useless citations. I gave up after looking at the first 30 citations. Most did not even mention the subject of this article, and many others had only a passing mention of her name. I didn't see anything that really contributed to establishing notability for her. - Donald Albury 16:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment I have gone back and looked at all of the sources still cited in the article, except for the videos at UN Web TV (I have trouble hearing video), and I still do not see anything of substance in reliable sources (the blogs don't count, as, per WP:SPS, we "[n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"). - Donald Albury 21:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone back and deleted a lot of the cruft. It doesn't help the article to spam it with irrelevant refs that are either A)non-notable or B) don't actually mention the article subject, but what's left provides a workable basis for a marginally notable yoga expert and I think there's enough coverage to get over the WP:GNG bar. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated this for AFI as a start-class article. Not doing any more to save it beyond that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, which seems to be the primary claim to notability. Writing a book is not enough, it has to generate WP:SIGCOV. Searches persuade me of her lack of notability. mere WP:PROMO for a non-notable yoga teacher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the person who originally placed the PROD, I still stand by that the article is not neutral or notable. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 19:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you that the article is not neutral. But WP:PROMO is not grounds for deletion. However I do think the subject probably (barely) meets WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simonm223; if you want to persuade me, bring some examples of the SIGCOV you're seeing and feel free to ping me. I'm always willing to change an opinion at AfD when someone does that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the subject is barely if at all mentioned in any reliable sources. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 19:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did a harsh edit - [13] - cut (a)all unsourced material, (b) all material sourced to non-RSes, (c) all material showing only e.g. existence of an event or book and not its third-party RS notability. This leaves the article very skimpy, because it was puffed up before. Before putting stuff back, please find third-party RSes for it - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm amazed this is even being discussed still. I removed more irrelevant material from the entry. She was a minor panelist, one of several packing a 15 minute panel taking place during a 2-day event. She once taught a class in a Yoga festival. This is notability? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero independent sources. Notability has clearly not been met. Fails WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:24, 3 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wahaj Ali[edit]

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

Not gonna CSD this as there is a claim of notability, but as far as I can tell only one of the sources actually mentions him, and that is just his name. Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think he is notable. He's been covered by the media, even has an IMDb page. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 13:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a page on crowdsourced IMDb does not makes one notable. And how come the subject has been covered by the media? You need to demonstrate it by provide links to independent RS. --Saqib (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even having a single credit in a single television episode is enough to earn someone an IMDb page. It doesn't mean that the person is notable or not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has appeared in a few TV series, but with minor roles. Fails to meet WP:ACTORBIO and even basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has had leading and prominent roles in multiple nationally broadcast tv series such as Zoya Sawleha, Hari Hari Churiyaan, Ahsas, Gila, Mera Dard Na Janay Koi and others so passes at least one criteria of WP:NACTOR, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how can we verify it? --Saqib (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - By doing a search under each series, which i'll aim to do tomorrow, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just realized that this article was deleted almost a year ago (why do you think this is the second nomination?), but was recreated yesterday, for very similar reasons. funplussmart (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it was recreated by the suspected sock of paid user User:Pakistanpedia. Saqib (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just searched several major resources for Wahaj Ali:
- Ebook Central, using the administrative interface (so I get results from all books, not just results from ones my library owns or subscribes) as well as the reader interface — zero results.
- EBSCOhost, a platform with 82 separate databases to which we subscribe — one result, an article co-authored by Wahaj Ali, "Enhancement in corrosion resistance by nano-structure Ni-Cr coating for boilers [sic] application" and published a year ago in the journal Science International. Obviously not the same person.
- ProQuest Central, a platform with 24 separate databases to which we subscribe — nothing useful
No coverage in the literature = no notability. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since the subject is a Pakistani television actor, I would expect that if there are any good sources to use, they would most likely come from Pakistani newspapers, Pakistani pop culture magazines, and Pakistani pop culture websites. A database that covers scholarly journals wouldn't be of much use in researching the subject. Do those databases cover the Pakistani sources that would be relevant here? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. They provide reliable sources in many languages from all over the world, including Pakistan, but they do not include unreliable sources like the ones you list. The relevant types of publications indexed in these databases are books and academic journals in media studies and history: they are the reliable sources in the field, not newspapers, magazines, or ordinary websites with no credentials. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we could only rely on books and academic journals, without newspapers or magazines being treated as reliable sources, we would have a hard time writing biographical articles about many contemporary actors, musicians, and athletes, other than the highest echelon of the most established and prominent ones. I -- and, I suspect, many other Wikipedians -- would prefer not to impose such a restriction, and I don't think that standard reflects the current guidelines per WP:RS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had time to do a full search yet but ruling out all newspapers and magazines in favour of academic sources for a non academic subject is ridiculous, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page was deleted a year ago for failing WP:GNG and was recently recreated without the lack of notability issue being resolved. His presence on IMDB adds nothing of value to his notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 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. Since this has now been relisted twice it really ought to be closed, but I'm closing it as "no consensus" rather than "keep". Multiple users have suggested that this article be kept, but few policy-based reasons or sources have been advanced. Without such reasons, there is no policy-based consensus to close this as "keep". Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Kelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One time appearance on a reality TV show and nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage of professional wrestling career. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kelly has been a popular up and coming women's star on the independent wrestling scene, she will be involved with the WWE's Mae Young Classic.--HC7 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that supports notability guidelines? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 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 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say instead of Keep or Delete, Wait. The MYC is near, so maybe in a few weeks, is hired or something, I don't know. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the amount of sources here that are not cagematch are few. That being said, they do exist. - Scarpy (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scarpy: But what about when the remaining ones are not WP:RS, as per WP:PW/RS. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. What about them? - Scarpy (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy: You are saying there are other sources, but if the other sources are not WP:RS why would that mean keep? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That actually pushes me more towards a Keep. I didn't think cagematch would be considered a reliable source, but looks like it is. - Scarpy (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy: Cagematch is an online database with no criteria for inclusion. While it can be used to source info, it doesn't help establish notability. Nikki♥311 20:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or draft-ify. WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 20:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time round.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with reasons of User:HC7. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs a little bit of work like the majority of the articles on here, just give it a BLP sources tag and the chance for someone to add to it. Duffs101 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article does need some more work on it, I've planned too but I keep on forgetting too. --HC7 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 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. G5: created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the ban or block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Kriegsmannová[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS. No WTA Tour main draw or significant ITF title ($50,000 or pre 2007 $25,000) Jevansen (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also fails GNG. Iffy★Chat -- 08:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnI've added reliable sources the player has already retired please do not delete my article. User:Sunsirisho★User Talk:Sunsirisho -- 18:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as mentioned previous, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been expanded since nomination, can people take another look?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator has also since been banned for sockpuppetry. Jevansen (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's still a delete from me, nothing added to the article since my !vote shows any notability. Iffy★Chat -- 16:53, 2 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) › Mortee _talk 11:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MS Tala[edit]

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

Unreferenced. I don't see any useful references searching for "MS Tala" "football" -"Wikipedia", so I suspect this is not notable. WP:NTEAM defers to the WP:GNG, so I don't see another route to proving notability. › Mortee _talk 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Searches under all alternative names do not reveal reliable sources with significant coverage to show notability. ~ Araratic | talk 12:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are more alternative names to this club, the sources added in Arabic do help to establish notability but significant coverage from them may be questionable. Withdrawing delete vote. ~ Araratic | talk 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added more content to the article, with sources of course. Ben5218 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently also known as MS TLA? Seems to pass WP:GNG but I cannot confirm due to language issues. SportingFlyer talk 01:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The club name in Arabic is (مركز شباب تلا), and from the way it's pronounced it should be spelled Markaz Shabab Tala or simply MS Tala. MS Tla would work too and it's actually used in multiple websites, but it's not the correct way to spell it. Ben5218 (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much appreciated information. Mentioned the club name since if you were doing a WP:BEFORE search in only English, you'd miss a number of possible sources. SportingFlyer talk 18:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did also try in Arabic (the name's in the article), but I couldn't find anything that way either; I should have mentioned that in the nomination, but left it out because Arabic's a hard language for me to search in, so I figured my attempt wouldn't count for much. Two of the new references are to the official Facebook page and one is a bare mention, so I don't count those for notability purposes. The other two do look useful. I'll leave this open a little while longer in case there's more input. › Mortee _talk 19:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good working on sourcing. Furthermore, this confirms (in English) that the team participated in the National Cup, which is a standard for notability for football teams. All in all, I'm convinced it is notable. Giant Snowman 10:45, 3 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ichirō Kosaka[edit]

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (courtesy ping) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name, and of the Japanese name. In this case I found one Google book result ([14]), and theTokyo Photographic Museum website which confirms he has photos there.

There were no other results for either version of the English name, or the Japanese name. He is absent from the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 20:05, 4 September 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 List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rough consensus that redirect is the logical option given the failure to demonstrate necessary coverage for any biographical figure per WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique R. Falabella[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a few fleeting passing mentions, quotations from the subject and name checks. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. In performing WP:BEFORE source searching, I found this source , but it is a primary source because 1) it was originally published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church, and 2) it consists mostly of quotations from the subject. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Significant leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no guideline or policy that provides presumed notability for Mormon subjects or leaders. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability and an article. Such subjects do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, and personal opinion that a subject is notable by default per being a leader in the LDS church is not backed by any Wikipedia notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Ensign, Liahona, lds.org) or not WP:RS ("Grampa Bill") and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions in event announcements and brief quotes reprinted from church sources. The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where information on the subject already exists. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can't find anything beyond an article in Deseret that ran when he was chosen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 6 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fueled Collective[edit]

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

An unremarkable coworking space; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Download currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Part of a promo walled-garden, which also includes Rameet Chawla and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fueled. The sources do not meet WP:ORGIND resulting in a promotional article, which even includes the pricing for the service in question ($650 per seat). There was another location opened resulting in more recent coverage, but it's routine, launch-related publicity. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

"CoCo shared-workspace founders got 'fueled' for the future of 'Fueled Collective'". Star Tribune. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
Monk, Dan; Riva, Chris (January 23, 2018). "Beer, buffet and Zumba: All in a day's work at Fueled Collective". WCPO-TV. Retrieved August 23, 2018.
Cone, Jaime (August 31, 2015). "Sorry, This Warped, Retro-Futuristic Apple Store Doesn't Sell the New iPhone". Bedford + Bowery. Retrieved August 23, 2018.

Nom's comment: these and similar sources have come up in my searchers; they are either WP:SPIP and / or routine launch publicity. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMO is a perfectly fine deletion reason - and this article is entirely promotional. The sources are also promotional and too don't offer anything in the way of analysis - don't meet WP:NCORP standards Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:27, 5 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Crastes[edit]

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable hedge fund manager. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of his fund H2O Asset Management, i.e. WSJ. The article on the company has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H2O Asset Management. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 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} 01:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A piece focused on him in the Wall Street Journal is indepth coverage by the most influential paper in the industry. Sure it's not independent of his firm, but that's why he's notable, for what he does, the Wall Street Journal is hardly going to focus on his family life and his golf swing. In addition, he has articles focused on him in over multiple years in multiple continents Citywire Switzerland 2012 [15], Citywire USA 2015 [16], Citywire Italy 2018 [17], Decideurs France 2017 [18], L'AGEFI (we don't have an EN article on L'AGEFI, but do have one in French, German, Italian, and Russian) France 2014 [19], Business Times (Singapore) 2017 [20]. That's quite a notable businessman. --GRuban (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Slight Keep -- Was able to dig up a decent number of citations, some better than others. A lot are in French or industry specific; seems to have notability within the fairly specific niche. If someone who is more familiar with the niche (also who speaks Frech, ideally) is willing to dig through journals to determine what is and isn't authoritative from the list below, it seems plausible that the article could be expanded and touched up to make the relevant/notability unambiguous.
DirkDouse (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Slight Delete - The WSJ is the only "good" reference I'm seeing. Hard to assess the quality of the other reference as they aren't in English, and don't seem to be from major media outlets. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the links that I gave? They're mostly in English, and from media outlets that we have Wikipedia articles on, especially international media outlets. My contention is that if newspapers on three continents write pieces specifically about you over the course of 7 years, they've clearly taken notice. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 31 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headout[edit]

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable online travel site; significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are passing mentions, WP:SPIP or routine funding news. Previously deleted via PROD. According to my PROD log, the first version of the article was created by Special:Contributions/Zohairkhan307, a SPA with no other contributions. The contribution history of the current creator (Special:Contributions/Baman_Tary) is likewise curious, consisting exclusively of 0-, 1- or 2-byte edits, with the exception of creation of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an article with 3 lines of text and 7 references should ring some alarms. Special:Contributions/Baman_Tary is truly amazing. "Not yet" - when we announce that Wikipedia is open to free adverts from anybody - then this can be published. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:23, 2 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-Space[edit]

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

Non-notable classification of knowledge. Not sure whether it's closer to self-promotion or a dic-def, in both cases not encyclopedic. Appears to fail GNG. — JFG ^talk 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a certain amount of uptake of the term in the scientific literature; the stuff in "Further reading" could all be drafted in as references, and would shore it up sufficiently. Already has enough substance to get it past the dictdef barrier, too. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae. wumbolo ^^^ 07:57, 7 September 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. Essentially, nobody explicitly said they wanted to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twinbow[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Failed to chart or receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Hayman30 (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been awarded a Pulitzer Prize^[1] and there are reliable sources that are independent from the topic and discuss the song significantly.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]. The editor whose username is Z0 13:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: uh, Z0, you do know that Pulitzer Prize article is a joke and it actually says "April Fools" at the bottom of it, right? Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG! Nope, I didn't. That's so embarrassing! The editor whose username is Z0 15:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Marshmello & Slushii's "Twinbow" awarded Pulitzer prize for music". Dancing Astronaut. April 1, 2017. Retrieved August 17, 2018.
^ "Slushii & Marshmello's 'Twinbow' Will Have You Blissed Out on Bass: Listen". Billboard. Retrieved 2018-08-17.
^ "JAUZ Unleashes Surprise Remix For Marshmello & Slushii's Big Collab [LISTEN]". Your EDM. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2018-08-17.
^ "Marshmello & Slushii's 'Twinbow' Gets Heavy Remix From Jauz". Billboard. Retrieved 2018-08-17.
^ "Marshmello se une une com Slushii para a nova faixa "Twinbow" | Wonderland In Rave". Wonderland in Rave (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 2018-08-17.
^ "JAUZ remixes Marshmello x Slushii's 'Twinbow' - Dancing Astronaut". Dancing Astronaut. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2018-08-17.
^ "Slushii & Marshmello's Collab Is Finally Here, But Does It Live Up To The Hype? [LISTEN]". Your EDM. 2017-03-17. Retrieved 2018-08-17.

Wonderland in Rave is apparently a blog (frankly any website with the word "rave" in its name). Your EDM is borderline blog. Billboard's first article didn't go in-depth, and their second article is more of a remix announcement, definitely isn't significant coverage. Hayman30 (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see anything special about this article, but as a marshmello fan, I want to expand this article but there's nothing more I can add here.

If this article should be kept, then redirects like You & Me and Love U should be expanded. --hueman1 (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(new vote below) ~~Delete per nom. The above links aren't significant coverage.~~ wumbolo ^^^ 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo, why do you say that? Dancing Astronaut and Billboard (magazine) are reliable sources and there's two articles by each that are wholly dedicated to this song. The editor whose username is Z0 08:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the passing of WP:NSONGS#3 as this song is independently covered and released by other notable artists in the form of remixes. The editor whose username is Z0 08:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those sources discussed this song in only two sentences in total. Other parts of the articles are routine coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 08:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo, that may be true but taking into consideration all the other mentioned sources above and more sources like [21][22][23], in addition to the chart positions and the fact this song was created by two notable artists and was covered by other notable artists, should indicate borderline notability. The editor whose username is Z0 08:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. I've changed my vote. wumbolo ^^^ 09:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable, and a merge would be inappropriate since this is a single by multiple notable artists. wumbolo ^^^ 09:12, 7 September 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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace[edit]

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

I can see a justification for List of Presidents of the United States by home state, but Playmates? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion seems thoroughly sourced and an interesting supplement to the main article from where it should be linked. No policy based advice on standalone lists precludes the presentation of this data in this manner. Passed WP:SAL and WP:N, owing to the fact that the associated publication seems to make a point of noting the birthplaces of its models.... you know, so I’ve been told. Edaham (talk) 05:26, 31 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glyndŵr Award[edit]

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

Though this award gives out some very nice medals made by a local goldsmith, I can't find any coverage at all (other than occasional mentions in listings) of this award. I'd go as far to say the award gains more credence and notability from the people who win it, than the other way around. The article was originally written by the founder of the Machynlleth Tabernacle, who hand out the award. Time for it to go or, at best, redirect it to Machynlleth Festival (where it seems the award is presented). Sionk (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this does satisfy LISTN. It is frequently included in the biographies of those who win it, in biographical dictionaries etc. I have to infer that it is included in those sources because it is considered important. Also included in yearbooks: [24]. This must be based on its own importance. GNews does contain at least one article specifically about the award, and quite a few others primarily about the festival or winners that discuss it (there are also similar sources on main google search, such as what appears to be an article on Kyffin Williams from the Western Mail newspaper). Since many of the winners are notable or noteworthy on other other grounds, I don't see a problem with having a list of blue links. Add to that the fact that the Machynlleth Festival has had a lot of notable performers performing in person (meaning it is an important event). Add to that the level of importance of the Machynlleth Tabernacle that can be gathered from sources. I would not support merger to the festival unless there is room in that article for an embedded list of winners. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R due to the existence of the festival article as a merger/redirection target. James500 (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is my argument entirely, the Machynlleth Festival and the medal's recipients are undoubtedly important, but the medal simply isn't. I'd like to know where the one article specifically about the award is (I couldn't find one). Things shouldn't inherit notability on Wikipedia. A list article would also be unsourceable - there isn't even a list of winners on the festival's website so it appears to be using Wikipedia to host its info. Sionk (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be a significant award. It's often included in obits. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Historian and BBC commentator John Davies dies aged 76 | BBC News-Feb 17, 2015 | In 2005, he received the Glyndwr Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Arts in Wales at the Machynlleth Festival. Five years later he won...
- Ian Parrott: Tributes to Aberystwyth University professor | BBC News-Sep 12, 2012 |... the John Edwards Memorial Award for devotion to Welsh Music and the Glyndwr Award for his outstanding contribution to the arts in Wales.
- These are the legendary trailblazers who are Wales' LGBT role models | WalesOnline-Feb 11, 2017 |... programmes on television and radio. In 2005, Davies received the Glyndwr Award for his Outstanding Contribution to the Arts in Wales.

Etc. On this basis, I would say it's a keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be complying with WP:LISTN. Kraose (talk) 08:28, 6 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane Hamid[edit]

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

Being the youngest person to earn Microsoft Office Specialist 2010 certification at age five is not something that make a person notable. The person should meet basic GNG to have a WP:BIO.

Subject received press attention only once [25] which is not enough to establish the WP:N. Saqib (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has notablility for wikipedia so it derves to be part of wikipedia. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]^[10] ^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]. Missionary Muslim (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Zidane Hamid Urdu Wikipedia".
^ "A 5 years old Pakistani becomes Youngest Office specialist of the World!".
^ "The Pakistani miracle Boy is youngest speaker in the world!".
^ "Ramadan with Zidane - Quran daily".
^ "Exclusive Interview of Zidane Hamid!".
^ "Zidane's world record".
^ "Zidane's world record report by Roznama Dunya".
^ "Zidane's world record report by dunya news tv".
^ "Zidane Hamid Honour".
^ "The Little Author Zidane Hamid".
^ "Awareness to preserve wild life by Zidane Hamid 2018".
^ "Water pollution at lake view park - Report by Zidane Hamid 2018".
^ "Awareness about Global Warming on National media by Zidane Hamid 2018".
^ "Zidane Hamid invited at Mushroom Hunting Adventure".
^ "Zidane Hamid report on Pearl Water Fall Rawalakot Azad Kashmir".
^ "Zidane Hamid speaks about ecosystem at Pakistan Mueseum of Natural History".

Delete. Fails GNG. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia has a responsibility when it comes to biographies of living children, where the articles have to be entirely neutral and the sourcing must be especially strong. Being a child prodigy is not in itself grounds for notability, so the question is whether there are multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the person in depth. As seen in the list of 16 sources above, that does not appear to be the case. Some are copies of the same press release or the same content from pakistanbookofrecords.com. Some are very brief mentions (hence not in-depth coverage). Six of them are YouTube videos of his speeches (primary sources) and one is a link to another Wikipedia article. The claim that he lectures at universities is dubious and would need actual independent sourcing. In addition there are BLP concerns where the article's creator (who presumably has a COI) repeatedly inserts promotional text and unsourced claims in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially though that GNG would be met and spent a bit of time this morning looking for better sources - there are none. The Express Tribune piece is the only example of RS coverage I could locate. Especially given the COI and promotional concerns regarding this article (I see that just prior to this !vote it was jammed full of inappropriate content once again), there is no reason to retain it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite sources, being a child prodigy is not enough to merit a Wikipedia page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

being exceptional and child prodigy isnt a notable thing to be wikipedia? I saw wikipedia page of child who has not achieved any distinction except social media fan following. But this child prodigy has achieved something. Missionary Muslim (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a specific (and idiosyncratic) definition of notability. In addition, the existence of other articles is not an argument - maybe the other article you saw should also be deleted on notability grounds, and maybe that subject does met the notability requirements. That's not relevant to this article, though. --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost all of the proposed references are Zidane's appearances on TV or other video media. These are by him, not about him. Being a novelty is not the same as being notable. David notMD (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is very rare 8-year-olds are notable, and no exception seems to exist here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 3 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limelght[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no reliable 3rd party coverage. Tinton5 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see the significant independent coverage in reliable sources required to meet the GNG. I also don't see anything that shows he's notable as a musician.Sandals1 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 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. Early close per WP:SNOW Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Adam Anhang[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. There are 5 criteria guidelines for inclusion of events and this event doesn't meet any of them: (1) though the event occurred 13 years ago, it hasn’t led to anything of WP:LASTING significance (like a new law); (2) though the event has been reported by media in several countries (a pure result of the multiple nationalities of the parties in the murder), its WP:GEOSCOPE impact on any significant region of the world has been none (e.g., it didn’t lead to any new extradition agreement); (3) though media coverage of the event has occurred, all reporting has been narrative reporting, not any WP:INDEPTH coverage from secondary sources (as demonstrated, for example, by new books or feature-length articles written in major news magazines that perform analysis/commentary of murder cases); (4) though limited local media coverage of the event has happened on and off since the 2005 event, any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE has been driven, not by any lasting societal impact as required by the guidelines, but by spikes in narrative news (see THIS for comparison); and (5) though there has been coverage of the event by WP:DIVERSE international sources, this diversity has been consequential to the fact that the parties in the event (the victim, the alleged murderers, and the alleged murder-for-hire employer) all happened to be from different countries (or, in the case of the alleged employer, traveled to a different country), and not – as required by the notability inclusion criteria – because the impact of the event was such that it drove a diversity of news and non-news media to report on it beyond mere ordinary narrative reporting. Mercy11 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This murder case has no notability other than locally in Puerto Rico as shown by the only 2 references in the article of significance (#s 9 and 10, "Ingresan a Áurea...", and "Arranca Juicio..."), both cites by El Nuevo Dia, a local Puerto Rican newspaper. The other sources in the article are either not related to the murder case at all or are discussions about crime in Puerto Rico in general, making no mention whatsoever of the case. The only exception is a local Puerto Rico FBI Office press release listing (customary). With no significant coverage by reliable sources, the subject of the article has essentially been ignored by the mainstream media. This murder case set no precedent nor left any legacy (despite the allegation of legacy in its Legacy section which, when examined closely, is actually blatant Original Research). As such, this murder case has no encyclopedic value and should be deleted. Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage by reliable sources in Canada. See this Canadian article from the National Post dated August 26, 2018. This is a long-running story. See also several articles from the Winnipeg Free Press. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in Canada is like in Puerto Rico, local coverage, and this is because the person murdered happened to be Canadian, but not because the story itself has any international societal impact. Further a story by 1 single source (National Post) doesn't count as "lots of coverage". This also explains the Winnipeg Free Press news report (the murdered man was born in Winnipeg), and per WP:DIVERSE "A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article." As for "long-running", per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, "...a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." The story has resurfaced at WFP, not because the story has longevity on its own right, but because one of the persons presumed to have taken part in the murder was recently apprehended after many years. Mercy11 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was major news in Puerto Rico and, not trying to guess the future but I think much more coverage will come as the trial develops. Antonio Give me love Martin(Wassup?) 05:50 , 31 August, 2018 (UTC)
Keep. A murder case and chase after the person who ordered it, over several countries. Not a "Regular" case in my opinion. Atbannett (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a murder-for-hire isn't sufficient basis for an article; local newspapers report them all the time but we don't include them just because they are murder-for-hires. The qualifying reasons are at WP: Notability (events): There must be "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group [to be] presumed to be notable enough for an article." This case fails both those tests. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh is notable because it led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in the U.S. Hunting down a suspect, even if over several countries, doesn't make a case notable enough either; Interpol does this all the time, but we don't automatically make articles for every Interpol murder case. Also, the wanted person in question hasn't yet been found guilty of ordering the murder. So a statement like "chase after the person who ordered it" is not factual. Mercy11 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mercy11 raises some obviously false points:

For example he said: "Fails WP:N. ..no notability other than locally in Puerto Rico as shown by the only 2 references in the article of significance..., both cites by El Nuevo Dia, a local Puerto Rican newspaper... the subject of the article has essentially been ignored by the mainstream media." He fails to acknowledge coverage by: Dateline NBC, a nationally syndicated US program on March 14,2008: titled "The Pink Skirt Murder" or articles in the Miami Herald (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article217599445.html) or in widespread Canadian newspapers (https://globalnews.ca/tag/the-pink-skirt-murder/) or BBC or Daily Mail.

Mercy11 is also false in stating that the "This murder case set no precedent nor left any legacy." I do not know how legal precedents work, but the FBI using false advertisements, and recruiting the help of Interpol/Spanish authorities to snag an indicted murderer in a foreign country, is not your every day event. In addition, the link to Italy, and how they sheltered an indicted murderer on nebulous pretenses (that, capital punishment is pursued in the US or that Italy does not extradite mothers of children born in Italy) is relevant to other cases of indicted murderers who fled jurisdiction such as the Einhorn murder. Finally this case also involved the wrongful conviction by local courts, that in itself is another story of interest.

Among the other obvious points that argue for notability according to WP:N(E) that Mercy11 ignores. For example, "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance." The Dateline NBC program was from 2008 and we still have articles on the events from the Daily Mail and BBC [26] in England, from the past two weeks.

In conclusion, the story in this article is covered in depth by multiple independent sources (often national scale reporting), from multiple countries, over more than a decade. It involves areas of great contention in the administration of law: international flight from jurisdiction, protection against extradition by the sheltering country, false imprisonment of convicted subjects, the cooperation of international agencies in the apprehension of accused murderers. This will have repercussions in the future, and will be cited in future such cases. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All those listed are primary sources, i.e., ordinary news reporting. If the news was reported outside the PR/Winnipeg areas it's because of the large Puerto Rican population in south Florida, not because the case has any societal significance in itself. Proof of this is that there isn't a single newspaper (or book, etc.) that has done an analysis/commentary of this murder case to supports statements like "this case involves areas of great contention in the administration of law: international flight from jurisdiction, protection against extradition by the sheltering country, false imprisonment of convicted subjects, the cooperation of international agencies in the apprehension of accused murderers.", which is all WP:OR and which is precisely why this case is no different than any other murder case and should be deleted. The Dateline NBC claim is useless for it fails WP:V; its relevance can't be independently evaluated by editors here. Mercy11 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MERCY11 complains that this article is not of broad interest, but when one points out that it is, he/she complains that the source (Candian newspapers or NBC national) is not good enough. And then, Mercy11 ignores the international BBC [27] reporting. That alone obviates all the concerns. It is verifiable, it is not original research, it is very strong evidence of notability, and all the different sources over more than a decade after the murder argue this as a news item with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Finally for lasting effect, there is no WP requirement for a murder to change law or society. This murder however, on the basis of the wide coverage, clearly has a large impact. I agree with the other editors above.

Also how is it original research to identify the issue of "cooperation of international agencies in the apprehension of an accused (accomplice to) murder" (she is accused of paying someone to murder him and accompanied Anhang to the murder scene). Read any of the sources on her apprehension and that would be what is stated there. That assertion by Mercy11 begs reason. I strongly recommend that the deletion tag be removed. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "international" about the BBC report, and it doesn't provide any evidence of notability. (btw, that BBC report is also a primary source). Internationalization of an event in WP:Notability (events)'s terms is always tied to the notion of having widespread impact, and not to being reported by news casts in more than one country. The BBC report was consequential to the fact that one of the persons wanted in connection with the murder was apprehended in Europe, a region that's part of the regional area for BBC coverage. Had the woman been apprehended in Puerto Rico, BBC would had never reported it, just as it never reports on the hundreds of other murder cases in Puerto Rico. Thus, BBC reported it because the woman associated with this ordinary and non international murder case had been apprehended in Europe (consequential), not because the murder case itself had any impact in any British or European societal group. If, however, in the future this murder case has a significant impact on, for example, Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, then it may be considered notable.Mercy11 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The British BBC article byline was by an apparently British writer in Madrid, about a woman from Puerto Rico living in Italy to avoid prosecution for a crime that occurred in Puerto Rico. The BBC article is in the US and Canada section. Also I disagree with the definition of a BBC article as a primary source. I have reread the WP:NOR section, and disagree. BBC article was not written by someone close to the event. The newspaper has review of its articles by higher staff. This is a secondary source, very acceptable for Wikipedia articles.--Rococo1700 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are very acceptable for use in the article, but only as sources of factual information, not as a basis for determining notability. As an example, newspaper and police reporting are both in the same level: primary sources. Both are close to the event. They are both reporting the Who, What, When, Where, etc. But unlike police reporting, newspaper articles could also do analysis, provide context, perform comparisons, provide commentary, etc. (See WP:PRIMARYNEWS) This mode and detail of writing approaches more that of a book, bringing such newspaper articles more in line with the definition of a secondary source. But there are, so far, not sufficient quantity and diversity of such secondary sources about this murder case to pass the WP:GNG test. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per available sources. per coverage of this event. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having available sources that cover an event is not sufficient grounds to create an article (WP:What Wikipedia is not). There are notability guidelines specific to events (WP:Notability (events)), yet even WP:GNG points to the need for secondary sources, and this event has none; newspapers and a BBC report, the only verifiable sources given so far, could be secondary sources but none of the those newspaper or BBC sources given so far are. Mercy11 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The has been ONGOING, INDEPTH coverage of this murder:

Widow allegedly put $3M bounty on husband's head; Winnipeg magnate Adam Anhang beaten to death in Puerto RicoBarrera, Jorge. Edmonton Journal; Edmonton, Alta. [Edmonton, Alta]07 June 2008: F.10.
Slain man's father hopes for closure at last, Sachgau, Oliver. Winnipeg Free Press; Winnipeg, Man. [Winnipeg, Man]02 July 2013: A.3.
Man sentenced to 105 years for slaying of Canadian: [Final Edition] The Guelph Mercury; Guelph, Ont. [Guelph, Ont]14 Dec 2007: A8.
Widow charged in planning husband's death; Wealthy Canadian real estate investor died in Puerto Rico, Marino, John. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. [Ottawa, Ont]07 June 2008: A.4.
Anhang family launches $50-M suit over son's slaying in Puerto Rico, Bell, Jason. Winnipeg Free Press; Winnipeg, Man. [Winnipeg, Man]22 Sep 2006: A.1.
Widow accused of offering $3M to kill husband; Wealthy Investor; Canadian in midst of divorce at time of slaying, Marino, John. National Post; Don Mills, Ont. [Don Mills, Ont]07 June 2008: A.12.
Plus the 2008 Dateline NBC: [28] I will stop ther, after listing only the first few hits in an news archive search. Meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first 6 in the list above are all routine newspaper murder stories (and all primary sources), not what WP:INDEPTH defines as "in-depth": "In-depth coverage includes analysis", and there is no analysis in any of those 6 news stories because they are all simply reporting that the event did occur. The 7th cite (Dateline NBC) might be considered what Inclusion Criteria terms "in-depth coverage". But while that cite is useful, Notability hangs on much more than 1 single source in-depth coverage source, and WP:EVENTCRITERIA requires 4 other criteria to be considered: lasting societal effect, impact over a large geographical area, covered (in-depth) by a diversity of sources, and continued coverage. Merely re-reporting the event many years later isn't continued coverage. (Most murder cases take years to solve and be brought to justice, so length of time is not what the Criteria is talking about, it is talking about continuous in-depth coverage over many years; see my cite regarding the Murder of Megan Kanka for an example of continuous in-depth coverage). Under "Duration of Coverage" the Inclusion Criteria states, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article", and "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.". This murder case fails both of these "Continued Coverage" tests. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Coverage over many years, in multiple outlets, and in countries (also non English. Also Israeli [29]. It does not get much wider). Case is brought up as an example in similar cases. Clearly meets NCRIME andd GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being reported in many countries is not a criteria for inclusion and, in fact, the word "country" isn't even used in the Criteria. But since several editors seem to think that it matters, I will point out that the event was reported by an Israeli newspaper because the person murdered happened to be Jewish [30] - i.e., purely consequential, and not because of any international impact which is what the Criteria specifies. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli media doesn't cover every murder of a Jew - far from it - but in this case the accused was apparantly falsifying documents to show she was Jewish and immigrate to Israel.[31] As for relevance of coverage in multiple countries - see WP:GEOSCOPE. In this case I see coverage in - Canada, Israel, US (including Puerto Rico), UK, and a I think a few other spots. Coverage spans over many years - see WP:SUSTAINED. Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one said Israel covers every murder of a Jew (although they probably do), but either case is irrelevant here. What's being said is that the coverage (1) in every place outside PR (including Israel) has been consequential, not the result of any national or global enduring impact. The event has have no lasting impact in Israel or any other region of the world. (2) The alleged "coverage" is not what the Policy calls coverage for purposes of notability: even a huge amount of coverage alone isn't sufficient basis for inclusion, it must be (a) "coverage that persists over a period of time"(WP:N(E)). Do we have several RSs from Israel over the last 13 years? If no, then it doesn't pass the persistent coverage test. (b) Must also be in-depth coverage, and there is none for this murder case, all coverage is newspaper reporting, no critical or comparative analysis. Finally, for inclusion we must also consider the other 3 requirements. For example, coverage cannot just come from one type of source (like just from newspapers), but from a "diversity of sources". None of the paper articles cited so far are secondary sources, they are all primary, because they are only reporting the news, but doing no analysis at all (which would had made them secondary sources). I saw WP:GEOSCOPE, which I have been quoting from the get-go. It says, "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Again, GEO-coverage has nothing to do with newspapers from a multiplicity of countries, and everything to do with long term impact in a large region of the world. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per refs. Per sustained coverage throughout time. Per WP:GNG, WP:ONGOING and WP:INDEPTH.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SNOW Keep, per all the above voices and sources. And, honestly, nominator: arguing that all the coverage is local, including local to Puerto Rico, local to Canada (all Canada - last I heard it was a rather large country), the BBC, and now Israel - is becoming just a bit of a stretch. Don't you think? --GRuban (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't get ourselves hung up on number of countries (the policy says nothing about number of countries), and should focus more on the time magnitude ("lasting significance") and space magnitude ("significant region") of the impact of the murder case. These 2 are what the WP:N(E) addresses and, in fact, what it opens up with. As for coverage, the policy trumps quality of coverage ("in-depth) over quantity of coverage (which the policy purposely left in last place). Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The BBC got information from multiple sources and analyzed it. That's WP:SECONDARY news coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 08:13, 7 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audi quattro Cup[edit]

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

For me it seems to fail WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG with no real coverage of this event being played. Animation is developing 02:10, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article name is normally associated with golf, not just football, the article needs completely rewritten. [32] [33] [34]. There is loads more in the web. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was originally put as "2015 Audi quattro Cup" but I had renamed it as their was only ever one edition of this tournament. Animation is developing 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but need improving per Govvy so pass WP:GNG. But need do some cleanup Hhkohh (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of Govvy's links looks like a reliable, indepedent source to me. They all reek of advertorializing, so I don't think the topic has been shown to pass WP:GNG just yet. The event has never been mentioned in any of the 4 top Austrian broadsheets, which is a NO GOOD, VERY BAD sign when it comes to Austrian sports events. (The Salzburger Nachrichten have an article about the golf thing but not the football thing.) Damvile (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Damvile: Depends of your definition on reliable! The first citation I gave is a primary source from Audi, showing the history of the competition that's it's been going on since 1991 and that it's not just football but mainly a golf competition of the title provided. The next two sources are secondary sources from two car dealership companies which also support the competition, I don't know if there is a conflict of interest, but I really don't see a problem, as they are reporting about this amateur competition. It's been going on for years, depends how much research you want to do to build an article, there are a few local news services in a general google search. [35]. I am only going to point out the facts that I see. People really need to do their own research and decide weather they feel this article should go or stay and not just rustle up an opinion on a few bits I write. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Govvy: Hm yes, I guess it does depend on the definition of reliable! A conflict of interest alone wouldn't necessarily bother me, it's just that these examples strike me as pretty openly promotional. It's primarily the tone, not the venue. They feel (to me) a lot like the PR material my own employer pays people money to print. If the competition is notable, then by definition there must be some reporting somewhere that doesn't have this problem. Damvile (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link you posted goes to an article about golf? Not football? Damvile (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Damvile: Yes, the title for this article is wrong because Audi quattro Cup is also an golf tourney since 1991! The problem is that this is amateur golf, it won't get coverage like professional golf, the article is currently setup as a football competition which only happened once and was sponsored by two companies, the other being Red Bull. Do we want to cover this annual amateur competition on wikipedia, there maybe a lack of coverage by the high end news services. I have no qualms against deleting this, I just thought there was enough on the web to fix it to how it should be. And besides, there is no getting away from sponsorships these days, it's all over everything, so there is always going to be that promotional side of sports it's just a question of how we deal with it when we write an article. Govvy (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Govvy: Haha, I did't read this carefully enough at first and I misunderstood you. Sorry. I'm not opposed to the golf article, but then again the golf article doesn't actually exist at this point and so isn't really subject of this discussion. If the football article gets deleted that doesn't mean a new article with a different topic can't be started in its place, so the hypothetical future golf article has nothing to worry about :) Damvile (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable football event. If there's a notable golf tournament of the same name, an article about that can be re-created. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable football event only played once that didn't get significant coverage in Austrian media, only some promotional coverage from event sponsors. Definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Adjalli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral (See below) - there seems very little (accessible?) coverage on this author. As well as a number of 1 line mentions when a piece of art is being shown, there are a few books that come up with his name, but have no content viewable (and no indication its present in abstract etc). In this source it would seem most of the mention is on a piece of his work, rather than he himself. Thus I don't feel WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC are satisfied. There doesn't appear to be a logical redirect target, thus delete seems the only option. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS found in a search of Google Web, News and Books.96.127.244.27 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.244.27 and Nosebagbear you might want to take a look at فرهنگ2016's source that I think satisfies NPROF. --Theredproject (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::Will have a look tomorrow - please feel free to ping me in a couple of days if I haven't changed or confirmed Nosebagbear (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've had a look at the extra source, and to the certainly limited degree that I can interpret it, I don't believe the actual reliable content (I'll assume فرهنگ2016 is correct about the site being reliable) on the page is sufficient. The content below seems more like site commentators (both in style and content), and I don't believe Sig Cov is met otherwise. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need someone to do a search in Persian WP:BEFORE we make a decision here. The article makes claims to museum shows. Pinging فرهنگ2016 who was able to find Persian sources recently. --Theredproject (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theredproject ~~I'm not sure, but I think he's notable. Because, on the basis of this source, he was awarded the 1st Class Order of Culture and Art~~ (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria:The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.)فرهنگ2016 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per this reliable news agency, that so called "1st Class Order of Culture and Art" is simply a certificate issued by the Ministry of Culture, given to those artists who do not have academic degrees in arts. So it is not a selective, national award, and would not lead to notability. huji—TALK 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source فرهنگ2016 uncovered that satisfies WP:NPROF. --Theredproject (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears that this source isn't what it was supposed to be, but I think there is enough added below for me to keep my vote as it. In partcular, I think Vanamonde's analysis is very solid.--Theredproject (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a non-notable individual. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is one of the most famous Iranian artists whose artwork has been sold in the most famous art auction in Iran.[36] And museum shows.[37] And covered in Persian.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] فرهنگ2016 (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Neutral change - So two of فرهنگ2016's sources 3 & 4 provide good Sig Cov (5 might as well, I can't translate that. The rest fail completely on that front, with independent issues on a couple. I am incapable of judging reliability of these sources, making me incapable of judging either good (Keep) or bad (delete). With me being this unsure, I think Neutral is the only reasonable !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I came along to close this, but I find myself !voting instead because I was rather dissatisfied with the level of research that's gone into many of the arguments. This is rendered difficult by my lack of knowledge of Persian, but even just in English we have one very detailed account of his work with 24 citations listed on google scholar [47] (page 47), one detailed analysis of a piece of art made by him [48], two sources attesting to his significance as an artist even they do not provide much detail [49] [50], and several more that are difficult to evaluate because the text is unavailable, but which are unquestionably reliable (and no, I'm not counting the Books LLC publication) [51]. Under these circumstances, I find it quite unlikely that no reliable sources in Persian discuss this individual. Vanamonde (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 02:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I am currently working on upgrading the references in the article (which as has been pointed out leave a lot to be desired) and while I have made some progress to date, I expect to add further high quality references over the next few days. Having read some of the sources, it is clear that the artist/ calligrapher is a notable Middle Eastern artist and calligrapher. However, the main problem with the article is the poor quality referencing - and this is being addressed. Sources are available in both English and Arabic/Persian, the artist has exhibited in many galleries for which illustrated catalogues are available and is mentioned in several books published by reliable publishers. No doubt that this article can be expanded and cleaned up. The other problem mentioned in the deletion discussion was that the article was an orphan - but this has already been remedied. This article adds to the body of work on Iranian art and also on Islamic calligraphy and has a rightful place on Wikipedia. BronHiggs (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should also have mentioned that the main issue with this article, as stated in a tag at the top of the page, is that places too much reliance on primary sources. This assertion should have been disputed years ago, and could have been dismissed as nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion eons ago. In fact, the references were mainly to Persian newspaper/magazine articles, which other editors have pointed out were difficult to interpret. But just because a Wikipedia editor cannot understand the language used by a source, doesn't mean that assumptions can be made about those sources being primary, rather than secondary or tertiary. As far as I can establish, the article does not use, and has not for a long time, used primary sources. For my own part, I do not approve of an over-reliance on foreign language sources in an English language encyclopedia due to the difficulties validating factual comments. However, some foreign language articles may be necessary to flesh out the details of a subject's life and career. This is particularly true for Middle-Eastern artists because Western art historians and art critics have largely ignored developments taking place in the region. For this reason, the article now includes a reasonable mix of English, Arabic and Persian sources. And, when those sources broadly align with respect to key details, as they do in this case, it should give readers confidence that the article's contents are both accurate and comprehensive. BronHiggs (talk) 07:32, 4 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Afshar[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NARTIST. The one good source comes from a suspect online publication that seems to only publish glowing monographs on artists. To wit : "He was born in Winchester in 1983 to Dr Karim Afshar and Ladan Bagheri. The city’s unique sensibility undoubtedly informed the young artist’s person and works. The ancient capital of England is the final resting place of Austen. It’s where Keats composed ‘To Autumn’ in 1819... Afshar attended Winchester College alongside Nicholas Hatfull and Oliver Osborne, both of whom would study at the Royal Academy. Until then, the trio studied under Ruskin School alumnus, Laurence Wolff, who encouraged Afshar to apply to the Drew Art Travel Prize in 2001." What journalist writes like that? In addition this had the most puffed up reference tag name I have ever seen: "<re* name="Soulscapes and Success: The Extraordinary Art of Taha Afshar">. A search turns up no other in-depth coverage, and most article sources are primary. Was speedy deleted a few years back, so may be a candidate for SALT if outcome is delete. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as an NN artist. Likely COI. The entire article appears to have been lifted with minor word-changes to avoid the copyvio detector from one of the galleries' pages. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Palm is a Vanity award, and Nature is not significant. See User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries.--Theredproject (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. More sources are needed. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:13, 6 September 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.laneterralever.com/what-does-a-content-strategist-do/

[2] Publication: ET Tech Date: October 07, 2016 Headline: Logistics startup Locus is helping ease problems for e-comm and delivery cos Link: https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/logistics-startup-locus-is-helping-ease-problems-for-e-comm-and-delivery-cos/54727998 About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read the English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. ET Tech is a subdomain of The Economic Times and gets close to 148.99K views per month. Locus being mentioned: : Locus helps its clients in managing everything from dispatching, route optimization and real-time driver tracking to managing on field workforce to sending SMS alerts to customers. Some of Locus' other clients include classifieds advertising platform Quickr, logistics company Delivery and eyewear portal Lenskart.

[3] Publication: Outlook Business Date: November 25 , 2016 Headline: - Link: https://www.outlookbusiness.com/enterprise/big-idea/automating-logistics-3212 About Publication: With the circulation of over 4,25,000 and monthly website visit of 1.25 Million, Outlook India Outlook is a leading weekly general interest English news magazine published in India. Locus Quote: Today, the start-up has around 20 clients including Delhivery, FreshMenu, Urban Ladder and others, including five international clients. It follows a pay per delivery model and charges a percentage of the cost savings from its clients.

[4] 2017 Publication: BW Disrupt Date: January 4, 2017 Headline: Locus Enters Healthcare Services. Disrupts Medicine Delivery Starting With 1mg Link:http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/-Locus-Enters-Healthcare-Services-Disrupts-Medicine-Delivery-Starting-With-1mg-/04-01-2017-110695/ About Publication: BW. Businessworld on Wednesday (30 December) launched a media platform for startups BW DISRUPT to capture the growing buzz of entrepreneurship in the Indian startup ecosystem. It receives around 290.52K monthly visits. Locus being mentioned: : Locus helps 1mg optimize their deliveries by enabling efficient automation & optimization using their route planning engine for orders, live tracking and visualization on the dashboard using the Locus app. The average distance travelled per rider for every task completed was reduced by 50% by following the routes planned by Locus’ optimization engine.

[5] Publication: CNBC TV (video) Date: May 29, 2017 Headline: Young Turks | Locus Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3RZzsLeezc&list=PLjq9mRS1PfGBZaN1e38X2ZmevnU1e1NJs&index=1 About Publication: CNBC TV18 is an English business news TV channel in India. It receives 892.62K monthly visits. CNBC TV18 has got the highest viewership among other English Business News channels according to the BARC viewership data. It has a viewership share of 66% among the top 5 English business-news channels. Locus being mentioned: : Locus counts Urban ladder, Delhivery, Quikr and Bigbasket as its clients. It’s proprietary algorithms help companies dispatch, track and manage their on-field workforce efficiently bringing anywhere between 25%-50% efficiency in deliveries.

[6] Publication: e27 Date: 29 March, 2018 Headline: Beenext-funded logistics automation startup Locus.sh expanding to Southeast Asia Link:https://e27.co/beenext-funded-logistics-automation-startup-locus-sh-expanding-southeast-asia-20180329/ About Publication: e27 is Asia's largest Tech media platform. e27's publishing arm produces content that covers news on funding, startup and entrepreneur profiles, product reviews, resource and thought leadership pieces Locus being mentioned: : Locus.sh, an Indian startup which provides a platform for enterprises to manage intra-city logistics for scheduled and on-demand deliveries with data analytics capabilities, is expanding operations into Southeast Asia.

[7] Publication: Tech crunch Date: June 4, 2018 Headline: India’s Locus raises $4M to expand its logistics management service worldwide Link:https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/03/locus-raises-4m/ About Publication: TechCrunch is an American online publisher of technology industry news. It reports on the business of tech, tech news, analysis of emerging trends in tech, and profiling of new tech businesses and products. Crunch base has more than 2 million users accessing each month and more than 50,000 active contributors. Locus being mentioned: : Today, Locus is focused on helping customers optimize the operational side of their logistics, whether that is moving people, goods or more at scale. It doesn’t cover ride-hailing and it isn’t necessarily focused on ensuring the faster route. Instead, it tackles complex challenges such as helping FCMGs optimize travel for their management — the key focus being on spending as much time in stores for meetings — or helping organizations move large orders by figuring out how many trucks are needed, which routes are optimal, etc.

[8] Awarder: NASSCOM Date: 2018 Award: AI Game Changer Award, For Innovative Application of AI Link: https://d24cdstip7q8pz.cloudfront.net/t/t20171228172458/content/common/images/nasscom.png About Presenter: NASSCOM is a trade association of Indian Information Technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. It is a global trade body with over 2000 members, of which over 250 are companies from China, EU, Japan, the U.S. and the UK.

[9] Publication: ET Rise Date: January 22, 2018, Headline: This Bangalore-based startup promises to solve all inefficiencies for a logistics company Link:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/features/this-bangalore-based-startup-promises-to-solve-all-inefficiencies-for-a-logistics-company-locus-sh/articleshow/62599603.cms About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. ET Rise is a product of The Times Internet group that covers startup stories. The website gets close to 34.76M views per month. Locus being mentioned: : Locus.sh is a state-of-the-art decision-making platform which optimizes logistics operations to provide consistency, efficiency and transparency. The startup aims to deliver transformational value in logistics by solving complex problems such as load balancing, route optimization and container utilization.

[10] Publication: Economic Times Date: June 4, 2018 Headline: Logistics optimisation platform Locus raises $4M funding Link:https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/logistics-optimisation-platform-locus-raises-4m-funding/64444012 About Publication: The Economic Times is an English-language, Indian daily newspaper. It is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000. It had a circulation of 377,789 dailies as of June 2017. Locus being mentioned: : Locus has automated logistics for companies like Urban Ladder, Tata Group of Companies, Droplet, Licious, Lenskart and others. It was founded in mid-2015 by Nishith Rastogi and Geet Garg who worked together at Amazon.

[11] "Marshmello & Slushii's "Twinbow" awarded Pulitzer prize for music". Dancing Astronaut. April 1, 2017. Retrieved August 17, 2018.

[12] "Slushii & Marshmello's 'Twinbow' Will Have You Blissed Out on Bass: Listen". Billboard. Retrieved 2018-08-17.

[13] "JAUZ Unleashes Surprise Remix For Marshmello & Slushii's Big Collab [LISTEN]". Your EDM. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2018-08-17.

[14] "Marshmello & Slushii's 'Twinbow' Gets Heavy Remix From Jauz". Billboard. Retrieved 2018-08-17.

[15] "Marshmello se une une com Slushii para a nova faixa "Twinbow" | Wonderland In Rave". Wonderland in Rave (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 2018-08-17.

[16] "JAUZ remixes Marshmello x Slushii's 'Twinbow' - Dancing Astronaut". Dancing Astronaut. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2018-08-17.

[17] "Slushii & Marshmello's Collab Is Finally Here, But Does It Live Up To The Hype? [LISTEN]". Your EDM. 2017-03-17. Retrieved 2018-08-17.

[18] "Zidane Hamid Urdu Wikipedia".

[19] "A 5 years old Pakistani becomes Youngest Office specialist of the World!".

[20] "The Pakistani miracle Boy is youngest speaker in the world!".

[21] "Ramadan with Zidane - Quran daily".

[22] "Exclusive Interview of Zidane Hamid!".

[23] "Zidane's world record".

[24] "Zidane's world record report by Roznama Dunya".

[25] "Zidane's world record report by dunya news tv".

[26] "Zidane Hamid Honour".

[27] "The Little Author Zidane Hamid".

[28] "Awareness to preserve wild life by Zidane Hamid 2018".

[29] "Water pollution at lake view park - Report by Zidane Hamid 2018".

[30] "Awareness about Global Warming on National media by Zidane Hamid 2018".

[31] "Zidane Hamid invited at Mushroom Hunting Adventure".

[32] "Zidane Hamid report on Pearl Water Fall Rawalakot Azad Kashmir".

[33] "Zidane Hamid speaks about ecosystem at Pakistan Mueseum of Natural History".

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]