Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZinePak[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable startup. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is interviews, passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Being on Shark Tank or on a list of "30 startups to watch" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As undisclosed paid editing. I know that is not written policy as a reason to delete, but it is important to send out the message that this is not acceptable. !dave 10:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. MER-C 20:20, 2 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UCP Wheels for Humanity[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:ORGIND). Any useful content could be added to United Cerebral Palsy Edwardx (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stand by my WP:PROD, stating: "doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG, especially to the depth of sources required by WP:ORGDEPTH". -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:16, 4 February 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) 16:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Donegan[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom; Fails all relevant notability requirements. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chair of a small town's board of selectmen is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because the person exists, but this doesn't state any reason why he could be considered more notable than most other selectmen or municipal councillors in most other towns, and isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bare mention sources. One is election result, one passing mention and another profile from primariy source. No independent coverage and doesn't meet any point in WP:NPOL.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An absurdly far failure to meet notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 5 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yanik Silver[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:53, 1 February 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) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hikari Hino[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The first AfD closed as "Keep" in 2006; the second ended in "No consensus" in 2008. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Prolificness was deprecated from PORNBIO 10 years ago and reliable sources are needed to attest to to unique contributions to porn. The references in the article are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG without significant reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 7 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Gale[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Article created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an absence of good sources, in bot the artice and a web search. Fails notability tests.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 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 Move To Draft. Do not recreate unlessits well sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Island Hopping[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE !dave 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic entry. Would belong in some other article. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT a travel guide, see WikiVoyage; it also appears to be an attempt to coin a phrase. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-referenced article, which, as Atsme points out, appears to be an attempt to coin a phrase. Attempts at phrase coining such as this do not belong in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Atsme and Vorbee: The phrase already exists: Anthony Horowitz: modern-day island-hopping in Greece (The Telegraph); Greek island hopping - where to start? (tripadvisor) etc. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a travel guide is the reason to delete the article. I will clarify further in my reason above. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a real thing similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Cruise - I don't really think it meets Not Travel - it doesn't have any phone numbers, hotels, restaurant information, etc. But it's completely unreferenced and most of the sources I've found by searching quickly are not going to establish notability. Reluctant to vote delete as the sources likely do exist, likewise reluctant to vote keep based on sources I haven't seen Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep if not copyvio.~~ Draftify not advertising,the term seems used in a variety or sources , and if it's copyvio we haven't found it. As a type of tour, this seems to be the common came--searching Google for "greek island tour" shows that more than half the hits use the term. The style is `nec. but fixable. What's needed is further check for copyvio DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Checked for copyvio via Earwig. Came back negative. !dave 10:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that may not be enough in this case, because of the way it reads. Tere are two many possibilties for printed sources. If we keep it, the safest thing to do is to rewrite it a little to rephrase the parts that are most different from our usual style . So I'm saying Draftify. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and I know what you mean. Upon first sight of this article my 'spidey sense' thought copyvio, and I was surprised when earwig came back negative. !dave 17:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 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) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Brookes[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Run-of-the-mill actor/businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can't find any indication of notability or significant coverage, and the article was very misleading, suggesting he'd 'starred' in four major soaps, whereas actually two actors who between them had done appeared in the short film he directed. I've cleared that up, but the article still claims a series of short film appearances that aren't referenced and haven't found their way into IMDb. Mortee (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seconding the above comment. I searched his name with keywords such as "writer" and "actor" in Google, and all that came up were links under his control. Also, the editor who created this article back in 2008, in addition to many of the editors that touched the page afterward, seem to have only edited this page. While that doesn't necessarily imply conflict of interest on its own, it does in this case given the fact that there's no references included in this article. So where is this information coming from? CanoeUnlined (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Follis[edit]

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:23, 2 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essendon Royals SC[edit]

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

A low-notability sports club which doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:FOOTYN. No coverage in reliable sources, and has not played in the FFA Cup or prior national football competitions. Also currently no references. Kb.au (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club has played in the FFA Cup in every season since 2014 so meets WP:FOOTYN (playing in the qualifying rounds counts as playing in the competition – see e.g. this AfD on an English club that played in qualifying rounds only – plenty more examples like this if needed). Number 5 7 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Soccerway shows FFA Cup participation (for info, I've initiated a Wikiproject discussion about the criteria at WP:FOOTYN). Nzd (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per findings above. Govvy (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Seems like an incorrect interpretation of WP:FOOTYN. The logical interpretation of "teams that have played in the national cup" would mean only those who've qualified to play in the Cup itself – ie. the qualifying 32. Ridiculous to suggest that any minor local club with barely enough coverage to even pass WP:V meets the notability guidelines. Regardless, WP:FOOTYN is not a formal notability guideline, but rather is merely an essay. Thus should be read in conjunction with WP:NCORP which applies to teams, as WP:NSPORT does not. There's no way this team comes even close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately yours is the wrong interpretation, as demonstrated above with the Plymouth United AfD or this or this one. There are more which I can add tomorrow if you need further evidence. Number 57 01:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it's a notability essay which should not be followed then as it is an ADVICEPAGE that is completely out of line with formal enwiki notability guidelines. Even formal notability guidelines are just guidelines. How can a club be notable if it has next to no coverage in independent sources? Is there even enough coverage to meet WP:V which is a policy? It's a local soccer club playing in a nation where soccer is not widely followed compared to other sports. Kb.au (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nzd. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in National Cup competition. NZFC^(talk) 02:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the national cup participation point raised above seems like an error to me. They have never participated in competition proper and the qualification setup for the FFA cup for Victoria is based on a completely separate cup competition. That being said, there seems to be a reasonable amount out there to satisfy GNG, particularly under the old club name. I would note:

Recent reporting on club performance
article in Italian on the club
further coverage of the club in the context of ex pat teams
more brief coverage in a wider summary

Would assume there is more given the club's history. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Giant Snowman 12:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: using FFA Cup participation as a measure of notability is disingenuous when every FFA-affiliated club in Australia is eligible to enter. Hack (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above by virtue of playing in the FFA Cup. Smartyllama (talk) 17:20, 5 February 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) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arumuga Koundanur MR Garden Ground[edit]

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

This playground is not notable enough. Doesn't pass WP:N. M A A Z T A L K 21:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Cricket ground is not significantly notable considering the only teams mentioned have either had their articles deleted or are in the process of being deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 03:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication as to why this ground is notable, let alone sources to verify it. Spike 'em (talk) 21:14, 2 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Twomey[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. There's no WP:NSPORT guideline for camogie, and WP:NPROF is also clearly not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an accomplished researcher and athlete but lack substantial coverage in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:36, 3 February 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) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green mind theory[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. A theory espoused in one paper, published seven months ago, which is cited in a few lists of sources, but discussed almost only in social media and wikis. Hasn't yet caught on. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a badly written and poorly structured article which merely has a single reference. The article does not say much more than that the natural environment affects mind and vice versa. Vorbee (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research by the authors (who are all non notable). It doesn't matter if the paper is peer reviewed, Wikipedia is not pedestal to advertise reaserch work to wider public. It should be otherwise. When the reaserch become notable and get reviewed in other independent papers then article may be created. But now delete, poorly sourced, magnet for synthesis. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete An interesting concept, but one that has been researched by others, and from what I can see their work is largely based on meta studies. Their paper also starts by saying this is a 'proposed' theory, which to me makes it more of a hypothesis. See also Green exercise Derek Andrews (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase "Green mind theory" has not caught on with mass consciousness, and the article struggles to defend why it is a notable subject. Also, it only has one source, which is a dire poverty thereof. If the theory, or phrase, gets more widespread coverage, then it could warrant its own article; not now, though. If the creator really wants this in the Wikipedia article space, then they can create a draft in preparation. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:43, 8 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lawrence Jones[edit]

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

Fails our notability criteria for artists. No exhibitions in notable museums or galleries, not represented in collections of museums, no monographs. Some minor mentions in a regional newspaper. Sources like Reuters (uses to cite a credit for Rango) don't mention his name. The article in Patch is written by Caldwell Snyder Gallery. Mduvekot (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 02:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 02:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 02:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only available sources are very weak mentions and name checks. Lacks WP:SIGCOV needed to establish any kind of notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. Artist hasn't received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:43, 8 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkMarkets[edit]

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

Shows all the hallmarkes of a commissioned piece, with most references to financemagnates.com (7) and leaprate.com (4), "the world’s only multi-asset online/electronic trading knowledge hub" and and "independent research and advisory firm, specialized in covering the world of Forex trading". According tho those sources themselves. There is no significant, in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've been able to find... not much. And I scoured. There's a ton of Google hits, but it's either one of two things: 1) one of their analysts being quoted at a RS (which this article does not inherit notability from) (search here: [1]) and 2) a maybe notable different blog called "ThinkMarkets" that is cited in some books and other locations and completely unrelated to the subject of the article (blog linked here: [2]). Financemagnates.com has no editorial policy and neither does leaprate.com. I have to !vote delete. Nomader (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:23, 3 February 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. The delete arguments appear well evidenced and certainly moreso than tye keep arguments that appear to reflect assertion rpor personal opinion rather than detailed analysis of the content Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States[edit]

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

Delete. As with List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia, which is currently up for deletion, this "list" is inherently subjective and constitutes WP:SYNTH. One might argue that Soviet attempts to export the revolution are a notable topic, or that controversial episodes in U.S. foreign relations—from United States intervention in Chile to United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war—are notable topics, but Wikipedians cannot create their own list of such incidents without violating WP:NOR. At best, we could host or aggregate lists compiled by secondary sources, if any existed, but this "list" in its current form is essentially unsalvageable (even if some of the prose is not, and even if some of the sources might be useful elsewhere).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:42, 1 February 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 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not WP:SYNTH because no new proposition is presented--the editors did NOT invent or change the concept of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States -- there are over 5000 scholarly articles and books published in 2017 alone that discuss that concept according to google scholar at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=%22+authoritarian+regimes%22+supported+by+the+United+States&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27. It is not WP:OR because every instance is fully cited to RS. As for "subjective" that is not a Wiki criterion--our criteria is verifiability from reliable sources and this list meets that criterion. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not WP:OR because every instance is fully cited to RS." Frankly, did you look at the article before commenting? The very first example given in Wikipedia's "List" is Azerbaijan, from "1991–present," as sourced to the Consulate General of Azerbaijan (which gives a generic PR presentation about how "A strong partnership with the United States plays a major role in Azerbaijan's foreign policy. This has held true ever since the U.S. recognized Azerbaijan's independence on December 25, 1991 ...") and Freedom House (not necessarily a universal arbiter of "freedom"!) which ranked Azerbaijan "Not Free" in 2015. That content is a blatant misuse of primary sources and the very textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. Do you need me to go on? Because the whole "List" is like that!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go on down the "List." "Bahrain 1971–present" is sourced to one article on U.S. arms sales to the country and a non-functioning link to Human Rights Watch, with no indication how the time period was decided; "Brunei 1984–present" is sourced to the State Department and Freedom House, as well as a Guardian article on the country's Sharia court system (which is not necessarily synonymous with "authoritarian regime"); "Cambodia 1998–present" is unsourced, as the cited source tells us only that Hun Sen expressed support for Trump. To repeat: This "List" is totally WP:INDISCRIMINATE and necessarily compares things that are not alike. Even if the prose is acceptable, the "List" is absolutely unacceptable for the same reasons List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia is unacceptable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're complaining about footnotes that need improving? Your intensely biased against the whole concept I suspect and that undermines your commitment to NPOV . Back to Azerbaijan you can easily improve the footnote by a simple google search to get Rachel Vanderhill; Michael E. Aleprete Jr. (2013). International Dimensions of Authoritarian Persistence: Lessons from Post-Soviet States. pp. 137–. Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the Bahrain RS works -- "US resumes arms sales to Bahrain....security forces there violently suppressed protests calling for reform in a crackdown that has killed more than 50 people....[US official says] 'We’ve made this decision mindful of the fact that there remain a number of serious unresolved human rights issues in Bahrain.'" Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the source doesn't say that there has been "support" from "1971–present," nor that Bahrain is an "authoritarian regime" (lots of countries have "unresolved human rights issues"—including the U.S.!), nor that the U.S. arms sales are comparable to the other cases on Wikipedia's list. In fact, it says the U.S. policy is a flawed attempt at encouraging political liberalization in Bahrain: "The resumption of US arms sales to Bahrain came after the kingdom’s crown prince, Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, completed a week-long visit to the US, where he met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Since the uprising, the prince, who has been open to dialogue and limited reform, has been marginalized by more hard-line members of the royal family, including the prime minister and defense minister. Some saw the arms deal as a US attempt to boost the prince's position within the royal family to increase the possibility of a political solution. But that strategy failed when the US attempted it last year, and is still flawed now, says Justin Gengler, a Doha-based Bahrain analyst who writes the blog Religion and Politics in Bahrain."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree the US tried and failed to moderate a Bahrain regime that massacred its reformers. I think systematically repressing & massacring reformers is a pretty good sign of authoritarian--or is that too "subjective" for you. As for other views look at Nicholas Kristof saying the US for years turned "a blind eye to torture in repression” in Bahrain so long as U.S. economic interests (like maintaining an uninterrupted oil supply) were protected. In part this was because the United States feared that the 'democratic rabble' might turn against it." Freedom House is excellent on lack-of-freedom issues and it's pretty clear on Bahrain's bad record. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Freedom House 2018 says Brunei is "not free" https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/brunei ; likewise Cambodia https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/Cambodia Here's an excellent reliable source that should satisfy NPOV editors. There's a very useful table here at [[3]] Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is currently a similar AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia. After looking at both pages, I think they both should be kept. Yes, as follows from the list, the United States has supported (and continue to support) a number of authoritarian regimes. So what? This is just a matter of fact and supported by numerous RS telling that such and such governments are "authoritarian", and they have been supported by the US. This is not WP:OR and no different from any other lists with certain criteria for inclusion. There are no policy-based reasons for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as RS tell about US supporting a country with authoritarian government (per Democracy Index), this is not WP:OR. For example, one could include North Korea in the list per sources like that. And BTW, supporting countries with authoritarian governments is not necessarily a "bad thing". The US administrations who did it had their reasons. No, they did not do it just for the sake of supporting non-democratic regimes in the world, and the list does not claim it. But the fact that they supported a large number of authoritarian regimes (despite the claim to support democracy in the world) is notable and therefore deserves a list. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki has a list of 14 possible reasons for article deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy None of the 14 rules fit this article--the closest is: "#7 Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" But that has not happened--thorough attempts have largely succeeded. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it avoids the category mistake error found in the Russian/Soviet Union article, the article is on the same weak legs as the other one, and when this article was shown on the other AFD page I was unconvinced about how this should be treated differently. As for Rjensen's point, there is maybe room for discussing support that the United States has given to authoritarian regimes, however it is not appropriate in a list format, rather it requires discussion and elucidation. !dave 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "tendentious original research" is the right of it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original Research. For Rjensen's benefit, that's the sixth reason on the non-exhaustive ("include but not limited to") list in the deletion policy cited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OR is not a deletion criteria--#6 says Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." No one here has argued that extreme position. "OR" is a technical term in Wiki & defined as lacking a cite to a reliable source. That is generally not a problem here. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering, of course, that the list we're talking about does say that reasons to delete "include but [are] not limited to" its contents, so there's a decent chance that the point we're arguing here is moot. That being said, as others have argued here, there's not the ghost of a chance that there'll be a reliable source supporting the claims that every single state on this list (A) is authoritarian (remembering that definitions of that do vary, and assessments of different states as authoritarian or otherwise do as well) and (B) is "supported by" the US (as against the US "maintaining normal relations with" the country, per ErinRC's comments below). If there are such sources, it's probably a good idea for someone - not necessarily you - to add them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as the Russia/Soviet Union list. Tendentious WP:OR, violation of WP:NPOV because the word 'authoritarian' is inherently subjective. The author has an objective, which is that America supports authoritarian regimes. So, this list has a flavor of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just like the Russia/Soviet one. Not objective, not neutral, time to go. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the reasons for deletion seem valid to me. I firmly believe that this page should not be deleted. I think that it should be fixed. Deletion strikes me as a rather extreme and unnecessary step.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEarth1974 (talk • contribs)
Delete In addition to the word "authoritarian", which is not defined in this article, the word "support" is also ambiguous. In a large number of cases, such as Mexico, Swaziland, Malaysia, etc..., this articles seems to conflate "support for" an authoritarian regime and "normal relations with" an authoritarian regime. I agree with !dave in that maybe a Wikipedia article could exist about America's relations with certain dictatorships, but it should be an article that can convey the nuance and complexity of the matter, not just a straight list.ErinRC (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One does not need to define "Authoritarian" in the list because we already have such page. All lists can provide only brief context/summary (at best!) for included items. That does not invalidate the existence of the lists. By the same reasoning one could suggest removing all lists on controversial subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. No definition of "authoritarian" or "support". Also, support for the regime and general support for or good relations the country under that regime are difficult to differentiate. --Kober^Talk 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All original research or synthesis of sources. Grandpallama (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strange to cite another yet-to-be-closed discussion as a reason for deleting an article. As Rjensen states, no valid criterium for deletion has been argued to apply. I do see a lot of "OR" and "SYNTH" claims. The article is very much not OR given the high prevalence of sources, and SYNTH doesn't apply since each case on the list only has to be sourced individually. Arguing that making a list of separate things is automatically synthesis would be difficult. It's actually one of the best sourced articles I've seen in a while. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No definition of "Authoritarian", defintely WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and a bit too vague for my tastes. AtlasDuane (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean - Entries should only be kept if they are described as both authoritarian and supported by the United States in the same source, to avoid SYNTH issues. Otherwise, the concept itself is clearly notable, which should be the only consideration for keeping or deleting the article. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or restructure - American support for authoritarian regimes has played a major role in modern history and is highly controversial issues since the United States is often referred as the “leader of the free world”. This topic needs an article for those reasons. Charles Essie (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean per arguments by Rjensen, Prinsgezinde and Ipatrol, and Charles Essie. It is a notable topic and reliably sourced but the list is bloated. Some entries probably need to be removed, especially if the regimes in question are not overtly authoritarian or if they were merely allies in a hot war. Some like Pinochet and Suharto should obviously be included. Others I'm not so sure about. Stalin was an ally in a major global conflict, not someone installed/backed by the US for its own ends.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:25, 8 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MS 180[edit]

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

This seems to be a typical non-notable middle school. The two references in the article are just a Google Maps link, and a two-line entry in what looks like a school directory website. My own searching finds no better sources.

The article is badly written; some parts in first person. That's not a reason to delete, but if this were kept, the article would probably have to be rewritten from scratch. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with it—it doesn't seem all that different from any other middle school and I didn't find much coverage, but schools seem worth having information about somewhere on Wikipedia and I didn't quickly spot a good merge target (presumably the school district), or an article about middle schools in the Bronx (rather than the category. Interestingly New York City Department of Education has 'see also' links to List of public elementary schools in New York City and List of high schools in New York City but I don't see anything for middle schools). I've tidied up the article a bit so if it does end up staying at least it'll be neater. Mortee (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article provides no evidence of notability. The Banner talk 09:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our established practice of almost always keeping high school articles as if they were notable, in order to avoid thousands of contentious AfDs has a flip side: almost always deleting middle school articles. It was intended as a compromise. If the compromise should break down , then it will be time to try to find sources for articles like this. Based on experience from before we had the compromise, I could probably do it about 1/4 of the time--possibly 1/2 tyhe time in NYC. But I think it better to concentrate efforts elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with arguments by DGG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:49, 8 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? (XXXTentacion Album)[edit]

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

None, notable unsourced crystal balling. It was nominated for a quick deletion but the article creator removed the tag [4]. So I think speedy deletion. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - meets criteria for quick deletion under WP:A11. Adding the speedy delete template since the author removed it without authorization to do so. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Author made the page redirect to the alleged songwriter of the album itself in order to prevent speedy delete. Kudos to User:RickinBaltimore for catching that when I put the speedy delete on there. Anyway, this may have to go to WP:RFD. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RfD closed and a bot has automatically fixed the AfD template. You can't take things out of the AfD venue by redirecting them, else people could drown the project in endless bureaucracy. Copying my !vote from there: List the album at XXXTentacion discography, with sources, then retarget to that article. If sources do not exist, cannot be found, or the page creator fails to identify them before this discussion closes, delete as WP:CRYSTAL. --N Y Kevin 07:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow and salt and whatever else to stop this taking up time every time the user decides to recreate it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crystal ball. Mortee (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL, not verifiable. Ajpolino (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 13:57, 7 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current NHL assistant coaches[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG via WP:LISTN. Assistant coaches do not seem to generate coverage in terms of discussing the subject as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Each individually may meet GNG, but this is a bit of an of WP:INDISCRIMINATE list created via original research. A merger was proposed in December 2017 to include as part of List of current NHL head coaches (and changing the name of that article to List of current NHL coaches), but may have been prematurely closed after very little participation. Nominating based on above concerns as I do not believe it passes the requirement for a stand-alone article in terms of WP:N, even if the content itself is easily verifiable. Seems like the info is better contained on team pages (where assistants actually have an impact, or a section talking about coaches in general (as in the proposed merger). Yosemiter (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into List of current NHL head coaches. Doesn't warrant an article of it's own (fails WP:GNG as a single article) but it could be included as a subsection to the aforementioned list. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Page is also lacking sources, so I am adding a "lacks citations" template. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A user has since merged the article as originally proposed, which I guess is their vote. I have moved the merged page to List of current NHL coaches to be more inclusive with the new content. If no one else has anything to say, this AfD can be closed as a Merge. Yosemiter (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. In addition, I oppose for the information to be merged into the List of current NHL head coaches, which was already done as there are no sources and assistant coaches are irrelevant and tend to change frequently, which will most likely not be updated. Furthermore, that page should be moved back to its original namespace. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair, I do think @AaronWikia: should have waited on the conclusion of this AfD prior to merging. If there is further consensus against its inclusion on that page, it should certainly be moved back with "List of current NHL coaches" kept as a redirect as a logical search term. Yosemiter (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I restored the page about which AfD was created and removed the content related to assistant coaches from List of current NHL coaches until this is closed. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned, public coverage of NHL assistant coaches, tends to be very low. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or Keep): I have worked in professional hockey at the NHL and AHL levels for 48 years and understand very well how essential and valuable the rôle of associate and assistant coaches has become, even at the AHL and lower levels. With the changes in technology and other factors, the modern pro game could not be played effectively without them. Being able to find all of these key NHL coaching staff personnel listed in one place (preferably in the same place as the head coaches) is valuable and useful to persons with a serious interest in the NHL. Centpacrr (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: I absolutely agree assistants are important to a team (where they are, or should, already be listed). But for wikipedia notability, that is a WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument for keeping this list as a stand-alone article. Also per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, just because something might be viewed as useful does not make it notable, hence my referral to WP:LISTN which poses to question of significant coverage of assistants as a group, not just individually (which is what they usually get coverage for during hiring/firing season of head coaches). Yosemiter (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is important information to NHL fans. No where else on Wikipedia is this info available.Vincelord (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincelord: as stated above, "it's important", is not a valid argument for AfD. Please describe how the list meets WP:GNG with in-depth, independent coverage of current assistant coaches as a whole. Could meet an inclusive standard for NHL coaches in general as head coaches generate tons of coverage as a group, but very little coverage for assistants as a separate subset (usually only discussed when speculating about which assistants are up for a head coaching position). Yosemiter (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think this topic makes sense within the context of NHL coaches. I certainly cannot agree that assistant coaches are "irrelevant." They get discussed in the team media guides and at least in the New York area they get attention from the newspapers when something goes wrong (or ocasionally right) within their area or responsibility and they receive attention from newspaper speculation on whether they will be fired or who will be hired to fill an opening. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL NOTE Anyone who has worked in the NHL (as I have for almost half a century) knows how important associate and assistant coaches have become in the last forty years to the operation of professional hockey teams at the NHL and many other levels of the game such as minor league, college and junior hockey. All one has to do is watch a practice, game day skate, team meeting or coaches planning session to see how much critical work they do, including countless hours of teaching and individual coaching both on and OFF the ice. No NHL team could possibly operate successfully today without associate and assistant coaches which makes listing them on Wikipedaia every bit as both "important" AND "notable" as head coaches. Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of "importance", team doctors and equipment managers are also incredibly important to team operations. That also does not mean they should get a listcufty-list about grouping them all together on their own page. The most coverage assistants get as a collective (not individually, many individual assistant coaches DO meet WP:N/GNG on their own, we are solely talking about a this article as a stand-alone list), is when articles are actually talking about head coaches, or specifically a recent or soon to be vacant, positions. Some groups of assistant coaches get collective coverage, but it will be in articles that focus on teams, such as articles that focus on New York Rangers' coaches for the 2016–17 season, LA Kings coaching staff, etc. This stands out as list that will go out of date (see WP:DATED and the use of the word "current" in the title) if it is on its own and near orphaned. Yosemiter (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless an actual persuasive GNG argument is brought to the table. My family doctor is vastly more important than any of these coaches, does not make her notable, and that is what this discussion is supposed to be about. This is not supposed to be a soapbox for the value of individual professions. Detailing of assistants belongs on the individual team pages in my opinion, otherwise won't there be an argument for lists of the people who make the ice, or drive the zambonis or whatever other invaluable profession is tied to the teams? Maybe those already exist, I don't know.18abruce (talk) 14:56, 8 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artemus Ogletree[edit]

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

A mildly interesting "true crime" story, but clearly a WP:BIO1E, that event being his death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the level of reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never personally heard of the events, and most of the sources I've found about the "Room 1046 Murder" don't appear to be the most reliable. I agree with power~enwiki, it's WP:BIO1E, and doesn't look like it could go anywhere in terms of an article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hilda Clark[edit]

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

Not seeing anything really establishing notably. Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Google books search of "Dr Hilda Clark" or "Hilda Clark" gives a lot of results. Entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography satisfies WP:ANYBIO #3. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable even in a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Her Great War work, among other things, is notable and internet searches turn up quite a lot. The article is not perfect, but expansion, not deletion is the way to go. Dunarc (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Enough there for notability, but not strong. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Needs a rename to something like Hilda Clark (physician). XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable in comparison with the subjects of so many new articles. Women like her who did so much for so many deserve all the recognition they can get, least of all a Wikipedia article.Plucas58 (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources content have been expanded, now is criterion for WP:GNG. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked for sources I could find about half a dozen Dr Hilda Clark's.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also have people actually checked some of the sources we are using?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some internet searches do seem to conflate the two unfortunately, but the subject of the article is the one in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which would suggest notability. Also, if you search Hilda Clark Quaker, quite a lot comes up. Dunarc (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled in 2 bare references, could somebody else have a look? SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is leniency for notability on articles of people who are no longer living, unlike articles for BLP, right? It seems like she was pretty recognized as both a medical professional/scientist and also a women's rights activist. CanoeUnlined (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important figure in history of Quaker relief work in First World War Frankem51 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of other WP articles point to Hilda Clark (the Quaker subject of this article). As there is another (unconnected) Hilda Clark (Actress) in WP, if this article is not kept, it is bound to be recreated to solve those broken connections. Note also that there is another Hilda Clark MBE (1905-1996) from whom Dr Hilda Clark needs to be distinguished. Citations I have added to the article are digitally discoverable from resources often made available via public libraries and or JISC open access digital collections. If I have listed them, I have read them and confirmed the content. 8LR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Covered in other books, such as this one. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anybody with an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is presumed notable per WP:ANYBIO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB entry = Notability. The DNB ref seems to have been there before nomination, so clearly a fail of WP:BEFORE here. Rename to Hilda Clark (doctor) though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggest rename Hilda Clark (doctor) or Hilda Clark (physician), whichever is preferred and someone create a disambig page.--Oronsay (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO instead of Hilda Clark (doctor), it is better to rename as Hilda Clark (physician), which based on the source information. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most common disambiguation for British medical doctors is "(doctor)". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no such different between "doctor" and "physician" on the meaning, Hilda Clark (physician) can be create a redirection to Hilda Clark (doctor). SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, yes there is. This has been endlessly discussed. In Britain, a physician is a specialist in internal medicine. The term is not used as generically as it often is elsewhere. It is true that Clark is sometimes referred to as a physician, but in fact she was a phthisiatrist (tuberculosis specialist) and general practitioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 7 February 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 John Romero. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo's Bash[edit]

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

One of John Romero's apprentice pieces; it's certainly an interesting bit of computer history, but not nearly notable enough for its own article. Suggest redirect to John Romero; I've popped a ref to Romero's own write-up about it into the title list there. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the game to wikipedia mainly because games don't usually get bounced around as much as Bongo's Bash did unless they're good enough to warrant that, in which case I figured it's good enough to add to wiki. The game was first created by John Romero for inCider, was then used in an advertisement by Cauzin, then sold to UpTime for publication. Three companies liked the game so much they licensed it so they could sell it. If that's not good enough, then remove the page. Buzzpuzzle (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Romero. The game seems to only be notable because of who created it, not because of any inherent notability in itself. Of the two sources present in the article, one is Romero's own personal website, and the other does not mention the game at all. Searching for more sources brings up very little, with the only thing of any note at all being an extremely small blurb in a German retro-gaming book. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:09, 3 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Free Press[edit]

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

Neologism. Two sources refer to Christian Free Press Limited, founded by Duncan Williams. Sources do not show that "Christan Free Press", as a concept has found widespread acceptance and is in common use to describe a "media mission". Mduvekot (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I guess. There have been a number of things called "Christian Free Press". Some of these could make a suitable article in the encyclopedia. An ultra-nationalist version is that of L. Fry. In my reading, the current article isn't clearly about any thing with that name that is clearly suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This article, however, doesn't source to an in-depth reliable source. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:01, 5 February 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) 16:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Clinton[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No significant role in multiple notable films. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ENTERTAINER — Za wl 17:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 17:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject was cast in a single credited supporting role in a major studio motion picture that could be considered significant, but it is the only thing of merit among a smattering of other minor projects. On balance it's really not much and as the nominator points out, there is zero coverage in reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one role in one film is not enough for noability, especially when the source seems little more than a cast listing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON a good start but not enough notable roles for WP:NACTOR and lack of coverage for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 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 deleted. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Industries[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:GNG. Lack of significant in-depth coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. — Za wl 17:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 17:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 17:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Declined AfC draft moved manually to mainspace by what looks like a sockpuppet. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the information of this article is fully referenced by popular news site. So this article is very useful for all the Wikipedia users — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realsunshine (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threering[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V & WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage, claims to notability are unverifiable. — Za wl 16:49, 1 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joobin Bekhrad[edit]

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

Almost all of the source are by the subject, not about him. There is no significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Despite assurances that he is an award-winning writer, the award amounts to a a travel bursary for a two-week residency in Shanghai or London. Mduvekot (talk) 16:13, 1 February 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. Copyright violations CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate notability: the only reference is the subject's own web site. This article reads like an advertisement, which is hardly surprising since most of it was copied from that web site. A Google News search shows a number of passing references and quite a few announcing the start of this Institute in July 2017, so it is possible there might be enough there to support an article. But it would need to be completely rewritten based on what independent sources say, not on what their own PR people say. Gronk Oz (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled for deletion by nominator: The National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Institute‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete As above. Wikipedia is not a web host. I will be adding a slew of related articles which are also just copies from the website with no secondary sources and promotional tone. The umbrella article Manufacturing USA should I think be kept but one user keeps reverting that to a copyvio with similar problems.PRehse (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object to bundling of Advanced Functional Fabrics of America, a well sourced article. I removed some junk that was cut-pasted just this morning. Also PRehse if you wish to bundle you must say so explicitly. There is no stealth bundling. I am requesting that either the bundling be done according to step III of WP:BUNDLE, or an uninvolved editor remove the AfD template. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error, did not mean to include that one. I think it is enough to remove the AfD tag at this stage.PRehse (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You ought to follow all the steps in WP:BUNDLE if you still intend to include anything beyond just Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks for the unbundling of Advanced Functional Fabrics of America. I have slightly refactored the list of bundled articles above for extra clarity, hope this is OK with everyone. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the cleanup I just did [5] is any indication, every article is cut/paste from the corp websites. Rather than tedious search for this in every case WP:TNT is appropriate. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:53, 1 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vicente[edit]

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

Promotional article supported by citations in publications like https://www.weblyf.com/2017/08/from-passion-to-profession-a-young-digital-marketers-journey-to-success/ that written by contributors who happen to also sit on the same board as the subject. http://www.davaoeagle.com/author/patpat/ More evidence of attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion at http://www.davaoeagle.com/about/ which cites a Wikipedia that was also written by Webstrike. Mduvekot (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paid Article of zero merit. scope_creep (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a Paid Article with sources. Thank you! webstrike (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination does not say it's a paid article. It says the article is promotional, which is not permitted, per policy. The nomination also acknowledges there are sources, but explains that they cannot be used because they don't meet our requirements for independence and reliability. Mduvekot (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just read the comments that it was a paid article. By the way, I removed the sources that doesn't meet the requirements and I will also add other reliable sources later today. I find the article more of informational than promoting but otherwise, I'll do more edits. Thanks Mduvekot Webstrike (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are valid ^[1] of Philippine Daily Inquirer, ^[2] of Globe Telecom for their award with Davao Eagle. 96.52.77.42 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/114030/globe-media-awards-winners-bared
^ http://newsroom.globe.com.ph/press-release/corporate/2016-11/5th-globe-media-excellence-awards.html#sthash.2Y0yDae8.dpbs

Comment IP: 96.52.77.42 is a SPA account, exclusively editing on Michael Vicente, and has a WP:COI issue. The first url doesn't mention the name of Vicente, nor the second weirdly. They are both for the company, not the man. scope_creep (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources about Vicente to establish notability. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 February 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 Manitowoc Company. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SerVend International[edit]

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

Not speeding this because there are references, but imo they are run of the mill and no case is satisfactorily made for the company's notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company; has been acquired. When it was a stand-alone business, it lacked notability as well. Directory / business listing / sales brochure. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manitowoc Company, its parent company. Likely search term based on Google results. Note that the referenced "Four Practical Revolutions in Management" has unusual depth on SerVend if it's not notable.
Redirect to Manitowoc Company as per WP:ATD-R, leaving the option of a potential selective merge open in the process. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 8 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dovetail Joint (band)[edit]

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

A previous editor called for more reliable sources and improved writing for this band's article. While attempting to improve the article I could only find two reliable media mentions: [6] (a brief intro article), and [7] (a poor review of one gig). AllMusic also has nothing except one intro paragraph [8]. Otherwise all available materials appear self-created and the WP article resembles self-written promotion. Not enough for WP:BAND, especially criteria #1. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. According to the article, they only released one album with a major label.Cait.123 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND, WP:GNG and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep মাখামাখি (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 7 February 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) 16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KVSJ (AM)[edit]

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

Not a station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission; it might seem like it, but KVSJ has no entry in the FCC database, and the article's text declares it a Part 15 AM station. To the layman, this basically means it uses something like a talking house transmitter (used to give info about a house from a real estate company) to push out a radio format to a limited geographical area, but is unlicensed, not meeting WP:BROADCAST.

Additionally, I have found other articles created by Martini Lewis X (talk · contribs) in the same general area also using false call letters and Part 15 transmitters to transmit non-licensed AM and FM stations and am including them within this nomination (note the user's history; they have a long line of fictional and low-range unlicensed station articles being taken to PROD and AfD and being successfully deleted);

Note: Shaunlovesradio2017 (talk · contribs) has been disrupting this nomination with several confusing page moves (see each article history), along with db-author tags to SPEEDY these pages although on the surface they were not the creator; I declined them to let the seven days go through, but I'm also opening up an SPI to see if them and MLX are related. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as for a few exceptions, Part 15 stations are not notable. These appear to be somebody's hobby stations; there are no 3rd party sources referencing these stations, which also violate WP:NPOV; at least one of the stations is noted in the article as being OFF THE AIR!Stereorock (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom and with User:Stereorock. "Part 15 stations", if they are really adhering to Part 15 regs, can rarely be heard beyond a quarter-mile radius; a part of a city block is more common. About the only way they will ever have WP-notability is if they are running illegal power (i.e. not complying with Part 15) and there is press coverage of resulting enforcement actions by the FCC. Their supposed call letters are of course not FCC-issued (not to them, anyway; the same call may have been previously used by a real licensed station) and the whole "station" is just someone's hobby. It's like having an article on the "JEH Railroad", that being a model train setup in my attic. The quintessential example of something someone just made up one day (including the "call letters"). And no, such articles aren't acceptable under the supposed "station"'s "brand" either. The article title isn't the point. Lack of notability is. Jeh (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; as previously mentioned, any theoretical presumption of notability for broadcast stations applies solely to stations that have a broadcast license — not Part 15 stations. It's certainly theoretically possible for such a station to have the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline — but I don't think such sources even exist for any of these stations. I'll also note for the record that since this nomination was created, two of the articles have been moved, in both cases by Shaunlovesradio2017 (talk · contribs): KVSJ (AM) to Classic Country 1620am, and KQVN to Oldies 106.1 FM. Both articles have been moved several other times by that user prior to this nomination as well, along with numerous apparent changes in the stations' format — and, again, not one source about any of this. (I'll also add that the Internet-only "Hot 923 The Beat" doesn't appear to be related to the two Part 15s in Thousand Oaks.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Part 15s and Pirates are not notable UNLESS they have, as Wcquidditch said above "sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline", and really only one pirate/Part 15 station with sufficient coverage to meet GNG comes to mind and that's Radio Caroline (pirate), with Radio Sausalito (a VERY cool Part 15) trailing very far behind in second. None of the others even come close. The rest have gotta go as they do not meet NMEDIA, RS, or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:13 on February 2, 2018 (UTC)

Delete all. Part 15 stations are not automatically deemed notable per WP:NMEDIA just because they exist, but these show no evidence of reliable source coverage about any of them to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 2 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prem G. Kumar[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a low level government functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 5 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Velasco[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:22, 1 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Finance Centre Ulaanbaatar[edit]

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

No claim of notability for this building which is sourced only by the owner's website. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 1 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Hollywood (film series)[edit]

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

Non notable DVD line (and not a film series as the article title suggests). WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 10:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an WP:ADVERT of where you can buy these films, rather than showing any notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:12, 1 February 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 Bangladesh University of Professionals#Affiliates. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proyash Institute of Special Education and Research[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-to the parent article, Bangladesh University of Professionals.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangladesh_University_of_Professionals#Affiliates as WP:ATD; there's nothing in the article that's suitable for merging as the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 7 February 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. Keeps outweigh deletes but not enough for a definitive result. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Standard Buffet[edit]

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

Not verifiable railcruft. The only references I find are Wikipedia mirrors and mention in lists of railroad car names (such as [9]), none of which supports any of the claims in the article. In particular, the article claims the car is in use in the USA, while the only references I find that use the term are British. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Keep I think that the article originally referred to a type of British passenger rail coach, it seems to have been hijacked in this edit, one of only two made by that user. Contemporary sources available to me - such as Pritchard, Robert; Hall, Peter (2014). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2014. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-909431-09-6. - show that there were thirty Mark 4 standard-class buffet cars converted from first-class, each having thirty seats. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since it's looking better and has lost the USA claim. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TNT. I'm seeing similar results: there was Mk4 RSB, and it's clear that "B" stood for "Buffet", but it seems untrue that "RS" stood for "Restaurant Standard", or for that matter that "RSB" stood for a general class of cars other than this one small set. It looks to me as though "obliterate and start over" is the right approach here, unless someone can find a source that says anything like what some version of this article ever said. I am absolutely sure that the USA claim is utterly false: there's no Amfleet car like this, and pre-Amtrak railroads didn't use that kind of language, or for that mater, serve food that way. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have moved on to something that at least might be true, but the original rationale now obtains: considering the work it took to verify that the things exist, the description of them needs some citation. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I was initially going to support this for deletion, but I then also found the long list of British rail coach types here and I was going to be ironic and say "hey, you wouldn't expect to find articles on all these silly terms like Composite Corridor, or Tourist Standard Open or First Open, or First Corridor" - oh, but then you do! I see there's a template for these UK (not USA, by the way) train carriage types, which I've now added to the article, and have inserted photos of RSB carriages on the British rail network from Commons, too. Randomly deleting the odd article from a suite of related pages seems pointless, but at worst a redirect to British Rail coach designations seems appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the context of UK rail. There are articles on UK carriage types of which this is one. Niche, but worth improving and keeping. welsh (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's definitely a real concept, but I have to wonder if there's enough material to justify a standalone article separate from British Rail Mark 4 or British Rail coach designations. With Tourist Standard Open, you can do it because you can compare across four car types. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 4 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portkey Games[edit]

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

Delete While the products this company is working on involves names like Niantic and Harry Potter, notability isn't inherited. The included references are either based on company announcements or based on quotations and interviews. None of the references are intellectually independent and all fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of what the articles that talk in depth about the subject are talking about, they are mentioned in depth by independent reliable sources. Many news sites covered the opening of the company, as well as the partnership with Niantic, and Warner Brothers. Clearly using those press releases would be non-independent, however sites such as Polygon, IGN and PC Games all present articles about the company. They also have numerous sources refering to them announcing games for platforms. If notability from sources referring to a company, and it's products are always exclusive to one topic, it would be incredibly difficult for any company to be notable, however, we have many thriving articles that exist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry_Potter#Games: I think that this will likely be a notable subject soon enough, and I think that it should be allowed to be recreated in the near future without prejudice. I think the sources are currently just extremely thin, and it would be better for it to be at the top of the Games section in the Harry Potter series article. Nomader (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They haven't released any games at this time, they are like a band that hasn't released a song, or footballer who hasn't played professionally, there is just too much of a crystal ball at play. New companies like this are rarely notable. I usually go with the references but this isn't significant coverage - it looks like references are being gamed... Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Much as I dislike voting to keep an article on a developer that, as Szzuk pointed out, has yet to produce a single published game, the sourcing does meet the minimum for keeping this article. Looking over the first 12 sources, four of them (the Higgypop, Hardcoregamer, IGN UK, and Venture Beat articles) qualify as significant coverage from independent sources. Even if the developer never ends up amounting to anything, it will still meet notability standards as a company that the media thought would be significant, much like some cancelled video games meet notability standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:38, 5 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Excess (Rhodesia)[edit]

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

The main section, titled "The Operation" is not written as though it were an encyclopedia entry. It's promotional, and cites sources that are not cited correctly. (Wood 2008, Binda 2008) Not only are there no citations, but the notability is shaky as there is no mention in secondary sources. Oh, and it's copied from here. _{Vermont | reply here} 11:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Wood book seems to be this. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tweaked the URL in the note.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (or, as a fallback, redirect to article cited in the nomination text); this reads to me like a small, insignificant unit action involving one force whose commander and strength are unknown and another whose commander and unit ID are not known.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read it, and it seems like a copy/paste from a text book and actually sounds like it came straight from a book on Rhodesian history, so much so that it sounds like a story. Based on this, I cannot find any reason to keep the article unless that entire section is rewritten and cited correctly. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:20, 5 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untameable Shrews[edit]

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

Non-notable local activist group: only references are to two blogs and a zine. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources means we can't write a quality article on them. There has been some recent attention due to their falling for some obvious satire from Southend News Network, but I don't think that's good enough to get them over the notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Is that the same organisation? I can't even find anything about that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Twas this. I had not realised the timing of that and this AFD were a coincidence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. SunChaser (talk) 11:59, 5 February 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) 16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch 'n' Sniff's Den of Doom[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW - seems to have gathered no media coverage. Killer Moff (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a TV show that lasted 1.5 months is almost certainly non-notable, even if it was on an ITV channel. Its history section even states that most of it is lost. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bad show that got dropped quickly, having viewed some clips on youtube i can see why it got dropped quickly. Nothing on news or books, google brings obvious it existed links but nothing independent or suggesting notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else; am convinced this doesn't meet notability criteria. Sro23 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 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 Withdrawn per research by Icewhiz. Fram (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bainbridge (died 1918)[edit]

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

Mentioned in passing (twice in the same quote reused in two different books, once in a footnote). An example of someone in the periphery of notable people, who might have been notable if he hadn't been killed in the war. But who, sadly, isn't notable. Fram (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He might have become notable had he lived; passing reference.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a bit of hits for this guy. Seems he was the lover of more notable artists, and a poet in his own right (both of pornographic ballads (less published) and of "If I should die" which is included in many compendiums of period poetry). Some sources: [10] [11][12][13][14][15][16][17].Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If of course both the family name and the year of birth in the article don't match the actual name and year, it becomes hard to find the right information... Even so, notability looks borderline to me (one poem which has been republished two or three times), so I'll leave the AfD open, but at least we now have the right information to base this discussion on, thanks! Fram (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems both spellings are actually used here. I went by the death date which I thought would be included in most sources and was obviously not wrong (birth dates are often funkier). This source - [18] - does discuss him in relation to C. K. Scott Moncrieff and Wilfred Owen (and there are a few others that do - though with less in-book text). His "If I should die" poem is covered/included in quite a few sources. I'm guessing the pornographic ballads are probably covered - but in a more specialist context. So to summarize - we have a minor artist (with some coverage as such) who is also covered as the lover/friend of (at least two) more significant fellows. WP:NOTPAPER applies here - this wouldn't be a vital article by any means, but he is someone it would make sense to look up who is covered in a few different angles in various sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Woodruff (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS: unnecessary dab page for primary topic and one other article. Ought to be speediable but doesn't seem to fit definition of G6, absurdly. Creating editor (currently blocked) hadn't added any hatnote to the Primary Topic article, either pointing to this dab page or to the one other article (now remedied), so doesn't appear to understand how disambiguation, hatnotes, etc work. PamD 09:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet speedy criteria (often these pages have an extra entry to be added or there's not actually a primary topic), but proddable per WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now PRODded to save the time of AfD afficionados: forgot about that option before, sorry about that! Not sure I can withdraw now deletion has been supported. Please feel free, anyone, to do whatever saves us all time. PamD 10:28, 2 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melonport[edit]

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

Copy PROD: "Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of indepth coverage of the company itself, as the articles cited focus on broad concepts. Also a likely UDP per WP:COIN Noticeboard." Widefox; talk 00:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again if by UDP you mean an undisclosed person (I.e. a potential undisclosed conflict of interest) I repeat until I am blue in the face that just because i'm interested in the crypto space does not make me linked to every subject I have ever edited on! By all means AFD, but I am tired of these continual COI accusations which are totally unfounded. The founder of this project, Melonport, was on UK TV about a week ago, she is trying to build a "Bloomberg for crypto". About a million people or more would have watched her interview. Oh I give up trying to explain. Gonna take a wiki break for a few weeks. Always happy to cooperate where I can. Uhooep (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Uhooep I saw her on TV. Widefox; talk 10:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhooep But just because there's a non-independent item on the news, doesn't mean we it's notable, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 13:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I filed the original PROD, which was declined. For the record, my mentioning of COIN was in reference to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Polkadot_(project).--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's now at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Polkadot (project), which for the record I created, so there's some circularity, purely coincidental with two editors acting independently. The wording of the PROD is verbatim. Widefox; talk 01:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; clearly WP:TOOSOON for a company launched in 2016. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH, being passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One third of the article's sources are concerned with broad subjects like the cryptocurrency and the existence of a "Crypto Valley" in Switzerland. None of this imparts information about or real notability on the actual subject of the article (Melonport), which indicates to me a WP:CORPDEPTH failure and a lack of encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is WP:TOOSOON, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:21, 4 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow (software)[edit]

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

A defunct cryptocurrency project; most of the information in the article is unsourced or unrelated to the project. No sign of coverage in reliable sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improve the article, remove all the clutter, be bold. Article should remain since it provides background information. prokaryotes (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt needs TNT - sourced to SPS or cites papers which do not actually mention this, but upon which it is based. This is very typical of crytpocurrency articles. Salt, to ensure that any new version goes through AfC so it can be properly vetted. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 6 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalu Shahpuria[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 13:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 08:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any third party sources discussing the film. Cait.123 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TIX[edit]

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

Contested PROD, removed with the addition of the Dagbladet source. My Norwegian isn't brilliant, so I'm happy to be corrected here, but that reads as a promotional interview (albeit with the online arm of a major newspaper), and is therefore a bit less than independent. I don't see a pass of the relevant notability standards here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the coverage in Budstikka? An entire article about him and the controversies he's been involved in. Did the nom do wp:before? FloridaArmy (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the world's most in-depth source, that one, but it might surprise you to know that I read it multiple times in between tagging the article for possible notability issues in mid-December and tagging it with a PROD in mid-January. As mentioned above, my Norwegian isn't great, so while I'm going to give it a sort of "conceded pass", I'm happy for someone else to critique that. Since you're hung up on the idea of a lack of pre-nomination research, though, I'll ask whether you're aware that WP:GNG calls for "sources" establishing notability, rather than only the one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and a Google News search shows lots of article covering this subject. Google Translate is fairly effective at seeing what the articles say. WP:BEFORE recommends doing such basic investigation before attempting to have article subjects deleted. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the lecture. Also, let's not pretend that a Google News Search which throws up every single article with the words "Andreas" or "Haukeland" (whether connected, related or otherwise) amounts to "covering the subject". You're welcome to assume that I spent all of five seconds looking for sources, but it simply isn't true. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable ibdependent sources as discussed above. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and promotional pieces don't combine to make reliable and independent coverage. Neither do articles about unrelated hockey players going to South Korea for the Olympics and transport in different regions of Norway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the sources on Google News and elsewhere aren't just interviews and promotional pieces. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of many examples. Please stop wasting peoples time with frivolous AfD's. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Handwaving at "many examples" and calling a nomination I in fact hald back on for approximately a month "frivolous" doesn't help. You could always add the sources and expand the article, but I think you prefer behaving in this childish manner, which does you no credit. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please familoarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and what's expected of you prior to seeling the deletion of a subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you don't think I've done that, but let's put this issue to bed once and for all. Here's what I did prior to listing this page here at AfD:

Read and understand these policies and guidelines (specifically the deletion policy, the "four main policies and guidelines" and the subject-specific guidelines)

I came across this page on new page patrol in mid-December, and noticed that it was a short article about a musician. Investigating NMUSIC, I was given a series of guidelines which the subject of the article should probably meet in order to justify an article. At the time that I came across the article, I didn't have the chance to do a full search for evidence that the subject met the guidelines in question. I therefore tagged it for possibly having notability issues, leaving it on my watchlist so that (A) I would see if someone else edited the page to allay or confirm my concerns and (B) it would serve as a reminder to investigate further.

Carry out these checks (an exhaustive list)

The major relevant one in that list was number 2 ("take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"), as my concerns dealt with a lack of sources. I did, however, ensure that we were not looking at a BLP-Prod case (as there was a source) and that vandalism and the like were not to blame. Over the ensuing month - through to mid-January - I performed searches on both the subject's stage name and birth name. I recognise that I didn't perform these with you looking over my shoulder, which appears to be the only way you'd accept that I did so, but perform them I did. Comparing what I found with the guidelines presented in NMUSIC, not to mention any more general guidelines around notability, in my view they fell short.

Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

Had relevant sources which met the bar(s) required been forthcoming, the article would indeed have been capable of being improved rather than deleted. They were not.

Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

Again, this was done on a number of occasions in the month during which the article was tagged for notability, as indicated above. In your opinion, I either didn't do this at all or enough, and I've indicated that you're mistaken in this belief. Again, such sources as do exist do not (in my view) get over the bar for significant, in-depth, independent coverage by reliable sources. You believe that there are sources "elsewhere" which satisfy this requirement, and as yet have only been able to point to a couple of promotional pieces and an absurdly catch-all Google News search result. I submit that if we were talking about a musical act from the USA or anywhere else in the Anglophone world, this level of search results would be unquestionably demonstrating non-notability.

What happened next

Having established that nothing I could find was of the standard required, I tagged this article in mid-January for Proposed Deletion. Taking this action can - I've certainly seen it happen - serve as a reminder to the article creator that some additional work still needs to be done. You removed the tag some three days later (as is your right), adding one of the sources I'd seen in my previous searches. As that (still) didn't get around the concerns that I had regarding the article, I listed it here.

A general point

Acting as if other users are stupid for not finding sources which you have found, or for holding a different view on the sources everyone has found, really doesn't help. AfD is full of situations where further research (frequently in quite specialised areas) produces an article which gets kept easily. The key here, though, is research, rather than name-calling. I'm always happy to revise my opinion if someone says to me - in a reasonable way - "You know, you've misunderstood XYZ". Carrying on like this - and across several AfDs - is the precise opposite. You'll also find that it's a good idea to assume the best of other editors rather than the worst. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in your nom dp you mention the first source I brpught up in this discussion which you have acknowledged covered the subject. And now I have provided another source discussing the subject of this article and no other. So it's a bit disingenous to say you aren't asking someone to look over your shoulder and do the work for you that WP:BEFORE explains quite clearly. These a proper news sources and there are others. My objection is tp not only having to find that there are in fact plent of sources with substantial coverage. Then having tp link where I found them. Then, having you refuse tp follow up, having to go through them one by one. Next I will have to quote from them. It's ridoculous. These are articles aboit this subject. If they are "promotional" please explain how and in what way? Why shouldn't they be considered reliable sources? Why isn't an article about this musician detailing his work substantial coverage? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in my nomination do I mention that first source? Assuming you mean the Dagbladet one you added on de-PROD, I actually do. Even if I didn't, I don't believe there's a requirement to "fisk" the article as it currently stands at the time of the nomination. I could simply have said "nn musician", but I don't believe in such a brief nomination. I'm not asking you to do my work for me, either. My reference to you looking over my shoulder is that I don't know of any other way in which I could convince you that I've done the relevant BEFORE work, since you appear to believe that since we differ on the nature of the sources that we've (both, I hasten to point out) found, I can't possibly have done any research on the matter (or any "follow up", as you seem to term re-reading the sources I found some time ago and you have pointed in the general direction of in the Google News search). Since you didn't physically see me doing that research, it seems, you refuse to believe that I did it, when the only difference is that we don't agree on the outcome of that research. Ultimately, where we differ is what to do with the "plenty of sources" to which you refer. Your view - as I see it - is that pointing in the general direction of sources and saying "they're substantive" is enough (and I do agree that an article shouldn't be deleted if there are substantive sources that do exist but haven't been incorporated yet). My view - having looked at the sources you've linked so far, as well as followed your handwaving on Google News, as well as having done that earlier despite your belief otherwise - is that they are not substantive. If you feel that quoting the substantive and relevant bits is "ridiculous", you're welcome to that opinion, but it seems less likely to advance your perspective on things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:ENT & significant RS coverage not found. In general, WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 3 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Casual[edit]

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there's plenty of coverage [19] [20] of the time they were temporarily shut down for copyright infringement, but I don't think that coverage makes this notable. The best coverage I can find apart from that is akin to [21]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 1 February 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. HighKing's analysis of the sources was decisive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Greens[edit]

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

Advertisement for non notable small chain. The references are all of them basically press releases or uncritical interviews. It is now accepted that these are not independent sources suitable of establishing notability DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not convinced. I'm not having any trouble finding sustained, independent newspaper coverage from noted food critics over several years. A better-written version of this article would probably pass WP:GNG. — Warren. ‘ talk , 04:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's quite a bit of business coverage about this chain, mainly because of the 2015 investment by restaurant impressario Danny Meyer. CNBC, Fortune, Fast Company, The New York Times, Eater.com, New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle/Business Insider, etc. The chain has become ubiqutous in Los Angeles and has outlets around the Bay Area and in NYC and Boston, so I'm inclined to think this is enough to warrant an article based on our usual standards for chains. If not it surely should get some attention at Danny Meyer#Career. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge would be an acceptable way of handling this, and the best way if the notability is primarily because of him. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, our readers are more apt to be interested in the history of the chain, not the biography of the founder. Remember: People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something. (SOURCE). Carrite (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. In addition to the above cited by Arxiloxos, HERE is substantial coverage from Inc. magazine. Carrite (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is fairly poorly written right now, and needs to be expanded, but the sources on it do exist, allowing it to pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill restaurant chain with no indication of notabilty. A lot of references have been provided but all fail the criteria for establishing notability. "News" stories based on company announcements and press interviews rarely meet the criteria and only do so if the articles provide independent analysis and opinion, thereby showing that the article isn't a PRIMARY source. None of the references mentioned provide intellectually independent reporting and provide quotations verbatim. All it shows is that the CEO and an investor like to work the media, providing interviews and quotations about everything the company is doing or hopes to do - effective marketing, not a sign of notability. This CNBC reference extensively relies on interviews with company personnel, connected people and investors and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The fortune.com reference relies on an interview with the CEO and an investor and therefore also fails WP:ORGIND. Thie fastcodesign.com reference is based on an interview with an investor and the company's graphic designer and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The NYT reference is extensively based on a company announcement, a telephone interview with an investor and quotations from related sources - therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The eater.com reference is based on a company announcement and a NYT article, contains no independent analysis or opinon and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The nypost.com reference is another PR-based article and fails WP:ORGIND. The sfgate.com reference is barely more than a couple of sentences (once you exclude the photos) and relies on information provided by the company and quotations from Meyers, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, the inc.com reference relies extensively on the CEO sharing his tips for attracting top talent and fails WP:ORGIND. It seems most of the Keep !voters above misunderstand the criteria for references to establish notability and have only provided references that extensively rely on PRIMARY sources and references that are not intellectually independent. While the company has good PR and likeable and interviewable execs and investors, the references fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find HighKing's in-depth analysis of the sources very persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 406 (Band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. — Za wl 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of importance as required by WP:NBAND. Mattg82 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already added multiple reference for band's credibility. Band is already an award-winning band in the Philippines after placing in the 2017 Himig Handog Song Writing Competition. http://bandera.inquirer.net/165997/jona-morisette-jake-inigo-bakbakan-sa-himig-handog-2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjecho (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NMUSIC & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep মাখামাখি (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on a review of available sources, this young band does not yet meet WP:NBAND. Sam Sailor 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iliya Elenski[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, no notable events ^{[Username Needed]} 11:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From reading the better Bulgarian entry seems he reached colonel and deputy regiment commander (so - one notch down from meeting SOLDIER). From the Bulgarian Wikipedia (+ this) - he shot down a multi-engine aircraft in 1954, a Greek plane. Coverage seems to be mainly in Bulgarian and in specialist airforce literature - I do not think he meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER unless there's something seminal in his book, which is probably not in a language I could read.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Coverage doesn't need to be in English to meet our policies and guidelines. The book cited in the English article, "ХХ век българска авиация : Кой кой е 1897-1999" by Цветан Цаков, is a who's-who for Bulgarian aviation from 1897-1999. Elenski is given a section from page 165-167 (I can see this by searching his last name within the text and examining the snippet view results). The Bulgarian article states that he is given in-depth coverage in the book "Пътека в небето" by Тома Ковачев. I don't have any access to Ковачев's article, but Ковачев and Цаков (the authors of the two books) both seem like legitimate popular history authors and I have no reason to think that using their writing would not allow an article pass WP:V or WP:NPOV. Thus, he seems to pass those policies and GNG, given the customary AGF about sources unavailable online. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vita (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTINHERITED. No third-party sources. No discography, only a couple obligatory guest appearances on labelmates' records and one bit part in a movie. Article was recreated despite a consensus deletion in 2010 due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have the same problems for which it was deleted prior. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notv enough coverage in sources to show her as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2010 deletion has no bearing as there is now four more sources published after that discussion. That directly addresses problems from that discussion. Three of the new sources look good. Where are they now articles still count as coverage. Combine them with the substantial MTV article and you have enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does pass WP:GNG as per the above discussion of the references but it is surprising she does due to her limited output but still passes. Atlantic306 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Individual is not notable, regardless of association with notables. Seconcepts (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable and ABC News, VH1 News, Complex and HipHop Dx is reliable sources and she was listed as Billboard Top 31 Female Rappers Who Changed Hip Hop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B058:14EA:99AB:E03B:7F29:4A67 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — 2600:1005:B058:14EA:99AB:E03B:7F29:4A67 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hey Brendar 1214 (or Kev1214, or this IP), are you block evading again? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source. Billboard article about her recording "Justify My Love" for The Fast and the Furious (soundtrack). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rapper seems to be notable. Harut111 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – based on the sources, and doing a Google Search and checking them, it seems that notability has been established firmly per WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 ✉ 14:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It should have been nominated under CSD G4. Run of the mill singer and supposed actress, who had some early success but not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Lets look at the film entry. She has been in a single film so fails WP:NACTOR. It is not a delete rationale, but she is not actor either. Looking at each of the supposed reference in run. This BLP article after all, and must be supported by reference that intellectually independent, and provide meaningful secondary coverage. Looking at each in turn:

First ref points to Eve in a listing that states, 10 female rapper who should make a come It is not a BLP refs, doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO and listings of these types are not considered WP:RS, as it is a listing. They are mentions by names only.
No 2 is press release from 2001 for a supposed album which was never released. It establishes anti-notabilty.
Couldn't locate this one, and anyway, it is a supposed for hall, rashaun not the lady, so it is also not WP:RS as it is a listing.
This is a fail. Doesn't satisfy WP:RS as it is mention by name only, and fails WP:ANYBIO. Another what happened to them now entry.
Date on this is 2012, supposedely working on new material. So it established non notability, but not WP:RS as it is a listing, and mention by name only.
Last ref is a kind of obituary, espousing the fact that Murder inc, never went as far as it could, dated March 2014.

All the refs are very very poor and doesn't establish notability. This is a BLP article, that is supposed to have wide coverage. It is not there. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's totally disregard this !vote. G4? At time of nomination 80% of the sources used had been published after the last deletion so cleary G4 would have been a very bad move. Run of the mill singer? Nope, more than that. Run of the mill singers do not feture on multiple very well charting singles or on a top ten, platinum (in two countries) soundtrack, including a track where she is the lead. Failing NACTOR? Strawman. Noone has claimed otherwise. The sources?

1. Poorly formatted ref, should point to the section on Vita instead of the one on Eve. The overall article is about 10 artists, not just Eve. Is clearly more than a listing. Cleary does more than just mention names. Total misrepresentation of the source.

2. No evidence to support claim of it being a press release. Doesn't matter that the album was not released, it is still coverage.

3. Scope says they never located the article yet claims it is just a listing. Nope, it's an article. Makes the strange claim that it's "a supposed for hall, rashaun not the lady" whatever that means. Any competent look a the ref would see that the author of the article is Rashaun Hall.

4. Once again falsley claiming it's just a mention by name only. Scope do you realise that many people actually have the ability to read and can see for themselves what is actually in the source.

5. Scope claims that working on new material established non notability? What a strange claim. Once again falsley claiming it's just a mention by name only when clearly it's more than that.

6. Scope makes the strange claim that this is an obit. As this one is primarily quotes from her instead of independent coverage this is one that I would agree is not much use for GNG. (an aside, this is based on Billboard's Top 31 Female Rappers Who Changed Hip Hop).

False claims, strawman, misrepresentation. Should be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed delete entry to Delete and Salt Clearly there is a plan to recreate it, once it is deleted. duffbeerforme, if that a real article, I would fight to keep it. But it's not. Its a terrible article, and any decent copyedit would remove 4 out of those 6 refs, leaving as a delete candidate. scope_creep (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme, Please find more coverage that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV. I see you have created more article that I have. It could be because it was early on the internet, the stuff may not be online. scope_creep (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you’ve made up a plan that no one seems to have. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passed WP:GNG and she seems to be notable due to searches on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bar 123 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment duffbeerforme No. I'm trying to explain, at the turn of the century, the internet wasn't developed, and it is possible that a lot of the stuff about her, would perhaps not be offline. Hence all these listing article. These listing articles show up about a subject when there is not a lot of info about a subject online, so the bundle together with stuff to make some content. It is a classic that there is no info about the subject. That why we have listing articles, they are dross of the content industry. If there was plenty of content about here, a big page would have been written about her. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 3 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia[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)

This is tendentious original research. The notion of "authoritarian regime" is subjective, for starters. There is nowhere on the planet where a list like this has been compiled, for seconds. Nor is the notion of "support" defined or definable in any objective manner. The bottom line is that this is an exercise in political storytelling rather than a serious encyclopedic topic or a list which provides any navigational functionality. Carrite (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention that this combines the Soviet Union and Russia as if they are equivalent entities. The former included the latter, among other nationalities. There have been multiple regime changes in each over time to boot. One word summary: blech. Carrite (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, as I have never seen an article like this in any scholarly (or even popular) work in my life; the page is full of POVs, original research and misleading edits, and is of very dubious value. We live in a world where there is cooperation in different areas between one-party and multi-party states, monarchies and republics, presidential and parliamentary systems, authoritarian and democratic countries, etc., and I have no idea who would decide to create a list of "monarchical regimes supported by Great Britain", "republican regimes supported by France", and so on, especially when the authors don't see a difference between "supporting a political regime" and "signing an agreement with another country". It's definitely not an encyclopedic article. Alter Z (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. User Alter Z is an SPA account with only several edits. Based on their edit history, the account was created specifically to revert my edits (two reverts were made during 30 minutes after my edits) and complain about me on ANI. This looks like a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks. Indeed, I'm new here and have had to register here in order to restore the neutrality of the page and revert two of your edits in the aforementioned article, but it's not my fault that you were violating WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV there and pushing your bias. Alter Z (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary on AfD to discount votes by accounts who made just a few edits. Now, can you please explain why my edits were a violation of anything when I fully explained my edits on article talk page [22], [23],[24]? Also, how did it happen that you created an account to repeatedly revert my edits during 30 minutes [25],[26]. BTW, based on your comments, you probably edited before from another account.My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually explained my point on the talk page and this is obviously not the right place for repeating my arguments against your edit. And if you like to know whether I'm an experienced editor or not, I gained some experience in making a number of anonymous edits a year ago. And I have been watching that article for about a month (thanks to IPs who were regularly filling it with new content), which is why I have registered and reacted. And if my vote won't be counted, then OK, I don't mind. Alter Z (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany was in fact officially considered as an ally by the Soviet government during a period of time. That was a sudden turnaround in the official Soviet press after a period when Germans were labeled "Nazi" by the Soviet propaganda. The turnaround was needed to sell the official part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact within the country. That was mentioned even in the official Soviet history textbooks printed for schoolchildren. There is nothing disputable here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to flood the page by reposting your marginal opinion, as it has little to nothing to do with my argumentation on the talk page and misses the point of what I have said. This is not to mention that Germany wasn't officially considered an ally neither then nor before. Alter Z (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The alliance to attack and separate Poland is not my opinion, but a historical fact. Also check this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research as well summarized by the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and a good handful of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 07:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: separate this article into two different list. Soviet Union and Russia part. This would really improve its quality. To claim that the article is basically meaningless is a great fail. I would like to point outthere are a couple of similar lists. Specifically, the "brother" of this article [[27]]. Do we delete all of them? I think both of them or none of them. Gabor vasarus (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the very vague inclusion criteria (the definition of "support" bothers me more than "authoritarian", but the nomination is correct that both terms are slippery things), which manage to combine everything from foreign aid in early 2018 to full-blown puppet governments of the Eastern Bloc three decades or more ago. The article cited by the editor above me is one which may well warrant attention here as well, WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding. Separation of one poorly-conceived list into its constituent parts, though, would only result in multiple poorly-conceived articles, which doesn't resolve the issues of the original and if anything multiplies them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with the definition (and misuse) of "support", indeed, is most likely the most important one, as there is no difference made between actual allies, trade partners, and so on. Profitable agreements, common cooperation in different areas, even unwanted but cost-effective relations between the countries are all confused and present as nothing but direct regime support. The reader is fooled into believing that every allegedly authoritarian political regime listed is/was deliberately and willingly supported by Russia/Soviet Union, just because of dubious WP:POV/WP:SYNTH/WP:OR arguments pointing at some sort of cooperation between them. Cooperation is thus equal to backing a certain political system in another country, even if no such thing is evident from the sources, and this naturally results in WP:SYNTH, WO:OR and WP:POV issues. However ridiculous it may sound to a historian, even the Nazi regime in Germany was listed as "Soviet-supported", based on WP:SYNTH argumentation and regardless of the fact that both of these regimes were rivaling, antagonistic, preparing for war one against the other and playing a complicated diplomatic game against each other while formally being good neighbors (Mr. Coffman, himself a historian, thanked me for removing that part from the list, though there was an attempt to restore it). This is just one example of how the vague inclusion criteria allow editors to oversimplify and misrepresent things in order to make them fit with their preconceived opinions and present some kind of cooperation as "regime support". Merely renaming the article or dividing it into parts would be absurd. The only possible solution in this case, I believe, is to delete the page, as most editors have reasonably concluded. Alter Z (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose to get into a debate about the historical issues involved (least of all here, which is the least appropriate place), but the question of exactly how to categorise the Third Reich's relations with the Soviet Union is definitely the classic example of the term "support" being slippery. Certainly if one were to ask anyone connected to the history of the Baltic states, you'd probably get a strong disagreement with your position. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot but agree with your comment (except for the final sentence, but this is certainly not a place for debates about history). Considering the date when the list was created, it seems likely to me that it was probably a response to another and older one, involving the United States, with a purpose to persuade the reader that other countries, too, support authoritarian regimes, and that the US are not alone in doing so. It looks like a polemical answer. Alter Z (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should not be doing. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JzG Grandpallama (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even begin to count the number of things wrong with the existence of such a list. Runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and really, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This makes a category mistake that Soviet Union = Russian Federation, and also gives no explanation as to why and how they support these regimes, just some ambiguous 'look at these cites - the proof is in the pudding!' stuff. Complete violation of our core content policies, and beyond economic repair. !dave 12:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly tendentious WP:OR, and even WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And, as said above, the author/compiler has a clear agenda and violates WP:NPOV. Gotta go. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this list go when the USA one should not, this list should stay and it is with accurate information, it should be sorted better but otherwise it is pretty good and accurate and if this should be deleted then so should the USA one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b023:5e50:4c25:d0c6:4a50:d367 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018‎

Please avoid using WP:ALLORNOTHING as an argument for or against deletion.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Gabor vasarus editing while logged out? It's just curious that an IP would comment here with the same argument as that user used above, and with no other edits. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Gabor vasarus (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly rename and split (per comments by many other participants of this discussion). Nothing is really subjective. There are definitions what is called an authoritarian regime, a democracy, etc. - see Democracy_Index#Classification_definitions. This can be based, for example, on Democracy Index which is regularly updated for various countries. In addition, one can simply check books which consistently describe certain countries as "authoritarian regimes". We have a page, Authoritarianism with a template "Basic forms of government". This is for a good reason. Of course all definitions in social sciences are blurred. For example, there are multiple Definitions of terrorism. But this is not a valid reason to delete pages. As an additional note (this is not an argument), we have List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here a previous AfD about USA, just for reference. After looking at the content more carefully, I believe that the best solution would be to rename this page to List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union and remove first Table. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deleting this article is pretty unecessary, a country being considered authoritarian is not just one random person’s opinion but it is actually measured on the democracy index. There are maps where they show countries allied with the Soviet Union. What agenda does this serve? If the governments get support from Russia or not is not made up by the Wikipedia users. It is the Russian Governments decision to support the governments of these countries or not. Authoritarian Regime is not really subjective as it is measured on the democracy index. Support is not really subjective because the Russian or Soviet government does give Financial and Military aid to these sovereign States. While Russia and the Soviet Union are not the same thing, Russia was the dominant player in the Soviet Union and the other autonomous republics had to obey Moscow. Secondly about governments changing, that is why there is regimes supported in the past. For Example, Hafez al-Assad is dead but Russia still supports Bashar al Assad of Syria so Hafez al Assad goes to Regimes supported in the past. More details can be added on the support for the regimes but deleting the article would prevent such action. - Anymous User 12:27Pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B046:ED22:D0D4:EB32:F929:DBB3 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) — 2600:1005:B046:ED22:D0D4:EB32:F929:DBB3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is a floating IP. This user made many contributions from other IP addresses. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To state that "authoritarian" can be defined is true but useless; this article doesn't provide a neutral definition. As it is, this is a polemic and is nothing but anti-Russian. (Editors can be anti-Russian, but not in the voice of Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Response to one above, this is not anti Russian propaganda and if you want to use that argument there is also a list called list of authoritarian regimes supported by the United states and that one is even longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A2C8:D600:8C33:7D8A:ED73:3375 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC) This is double vote, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too many failings in this article including WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Welcome to contribute in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States (2nd nomination). My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is so very OR. The similar US article should be re-nommed as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "tendentious original research" is the right of it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki has a list of 14 possible reasons for article deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy None of the 14 rules come close to fitting this article. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the section which reads "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following..." [italics mine]? Moreover, I would point you to the sixth of that non-exhaustive list, as many of the other comments have remarked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Rjensen: WP:DEL6 looks right on to me. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious original research. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, undoubtedly. Obvious and tendentious POV, SYNTH, OR, and unacceptable bias. I'm glad to see someone has finally paid enough attention for that page and tagged it for deletion. Dolchstoß (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While less sourced than the US article, I similarly don't understand the claims of OR and synthesis. It contains plenty of references, and lists are not inherently SYNTH whenever its components are sourced individually. What exactly is the problem? Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean - I'm going to make the same point that I made for the US article: the concept of these countries supporting particular authoritarian regimes is clearly notable. It comes up in the news on more occasions than I care to count. That being said, the list is in definite need of WP:SYNTH pruning. Each entry should have at least one source that within itself says both that the regime is/was authoritarian, and it is/was supported by the Russian Federation/Soviet Union. Sources sympathetic to either the regime or Russia/CCCP are not likely to suffice for this purpose. And all citations consisting of links to other articles should be replaced with references to the actual citations supporting the claim, if they exist.

Besides that though, this article is fixable, and should not be removed simply because of the state it's in, nor should it be deleted on account of potential difficulties in creating a clean and balanced presentation. --Ipatrol (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I'd opt for a WP:NUKEANDPAVE approach. The article is simply too unwieldy and has a lot of dubious sourcing and claims which would take more effort than it's worth to simply fix. Best to start from scratch or change the scope of the article, even if we're totally discounting the WP:NPOV concerns.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the existing sourcing is not problematic. For example, referencing to RT is OK to document statements by Russian officials. Consider this: "The project ... will provide a good basis to promote Russia’s interests in East Africa as a whole.", said Sergei Chemezov. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the cited sources link to other Wikipedia pages. That is not acceptable.--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed already. This is not a reason for deletion. As a practical matter, a lot of items in WP lists have no in-line references, especially in lists of existing WP pages. The references are typically provided only when someone challenges inclusion of an item to a list or care to check. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 7 February 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. J04n(talk page) 20:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence in Teaching Awards[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. It has one primary source. The article is promotional WP:PROMO 8==8 Boneso (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every award that exists at all is not automatically a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, but there's no indication here of the reliable sourcing that would be required to make it notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is inherently of local interest only, and even then presumably not masses of interest or someone would have changed the line "Nominations for the current cycle close at 5pm on 24 March" at some point between March 2014 and now. Mortee (talk) 08:27, 3 February 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. Michig (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Cerqueira[edit]

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

Article without references, eliminated in the lusophone Wikipedia. In short, Brazilian activist, pre-candidate for political positions, but nothing. Notoriety not evidenced. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 04:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of an organization, even a notable one, is not an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an unsourced WP:BLP separately from already having his name mentioned in the organization's article anyway — he would have to clear WP:GNG on the depth and quality of reliable sourcing, but there isn't any here: the only "source" is a Q&A interview on a Blogspot blog, which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source for both Q&A and Blogspot reasons. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually source him much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not show notability, and that is the only source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 5 February 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. J04n(talk page) 20:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Woodruff (philanthropist)[edit]

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

There does not appear to be any actual notability , excepting for being the patron of a local opera company. None of the references seem to be substantially about her. Accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relies far too much on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 3 February 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. Michig (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sue Cooper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. Cyber Girl of the Year honour is not significant and well known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination).

First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2006. The article was recreated in 2007 in the present form, and the subject is still non-notable. Second AfD closed as "No consensus" in 2010. Eight years in, I believe it's a good time to revisit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3rd AfD nomination and still lacking references and in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 03:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 03:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suprised it hung around so long, should have been speedied per G4. scope_creep (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack reliable source coverage that is indepth. The award has been clearly shown to not be one that adds towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 7 February 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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wout Van Dessel[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable musician or possibly redirect to Silvy Melody. Quis separabit? 02:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing the few reliable sources that popped up. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. scope_creep (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nominator and previous voters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Kerala University of Health Sciences (non-admin closure) — Za wl 09:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges affiliated to Kerala University of Health Sciences[edit]

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

Appears more of a vocational guide rather than an independent list, only primary sources used, no significance to claim it's a notable topic Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kerala University of Health Sciences. samee ^talk 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kerala University of Health Sciences. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. seems obvious. DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. is the thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 6 February 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rod Ryan Show[edit]

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

Article about a single-market local radio show, not referenced to any reliable source coverage that would get it over WP:GNG. Local radio shows are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA just because their own self-published web presence nominally verifies that they exist, but must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources independent of themselves for an article to become earned. Two of the three "sources" here, however, are promotional pages on the website of its radio station and a local business directory -- and the third makes no mention of this show whatsoever, but is here simply to verify what flavours of jelly bean happen to be available in a flavourpack that the show once utilized in an on-air contest. Which means none of these sources speak to the show's notability at all, because the ones that are about the show are affiliated primary sources, and the other one is entirely irrelevant to the matter. (Note: I've also already stripped two other WP:CIRCULAR "citations" to other Wikipedia articles.) Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated sources on the page. Let me know what else would need to be done to keep this page around. Or, possibly merged it with the 94.5 KTBZ page.Childs play (talk • contribs) 13:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sources still mostly comprise primary sources and blogs that cannot assist notability. The Daily Mail piece is worth something — surprisingly, it actually does directly mention this show, so it counts for more than I was expecting it to — but it's not worth enough all by itself as the article's only quality source, if none of the other references around it represent reliable sources at all. We require several reliable sources, not just one, before we can deem an article keepable per WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Middling morning zoo show in large market; no current syndication and a heaping helping of FANCRUFT. Nate • (chatter) 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour Composer[edit]

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

Conspicuous lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 01:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only secondary source that is independent of the subject itself, is not about the subject. It is a book source that addresses Game Maker. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just got worse: Someone added six more self-published papers. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some sources just got added. All are written by Ken Kahn, who is associated with the project, so all fail the test of independence. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Edit conflict! I just mentioned it above. I think I'll let it be. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:45, 2 February 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 Lights Out (2016 film). J04n(talk page) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca (Lights Out)[edit]

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

It is highly unusual to have a separate article on a character that has only appeared in a single film (or even a pair of them). I do not think that this fictional character is independently notable apart from the film. bd2412 T 01:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Weak retarget to Lights Out (2016 film). The character isn't really notable outside of the single film. The news coverage is more about Palmer's portrayal in the film rather than a detailed analysis of the character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lights Out (2016 film). However, it can be acceptable to have a stand-alone article for such a character if there is sufficient coverage that focuses on the character, especially in a way that would be too much to have on a film's article. But I am not seeing that for this particular character. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 6 February 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wayne Lee[edit]

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

Dubious notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The most notable claim is a Sports Emmy Award shared with 18 other producers. [28]. This Emmy generated profiles in at least two local newspapers ([29], [30]), the only reliable, secondary, non-affiliated sources. The other awards appear to be minor/non notable, contra WP:ANYBIO. All other sources in this article are either primary sources (interviews, the subject's website, names in credits), trivial mentions, or do not mention the subject at all. No other secondary sources so far discuss Lee's involvement in projects aside from the ESPN Emmy. While the subject is certainly an accomplished professional in his field, I believe it is too soon for an entry in this encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was apparently created by the subject, Jwl220d (talk · contribs). --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jwl220d came into the -en-help IRC a few times, as well as dropping a load of {{Help me}} templates in an effort to convince us the article was notable - we tried to establish notability, but after multiple passes we were still unable to. I concur with Animalparty in that the subject is definitely an established professional with an impressive resume, but WP:TOOSOON definitely still applies. @Jwl220d: please stick around even if this discussion results in your article being deleted: I feel like you could contribute a lot to this encyclopaedia! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 01:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jwl220d (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) It's become incredibly clear that --Animalparty! is holding a personal grudge because I questioned the contradictions with proposed edits made by them under my USER TALK page. Now this is up for deletion instead of working through the last edits? Ridiculous on your behalf.[reply]

So leave the notable claim and remove everything else. I’ve asked this be done multiple times only to be given the run around time and again. There was other notable sources - The front page of ESPN.com, Smashing Pumkpins.com , but those are no longer living on the web. Regardless, that shouldn’t discredit an award that is one of the top 4 most prestigious awards in entertainment. Please don’t try and discredit the fact that there are other producers involved. 1. I did all of the design work for this project and it was highlighted on those credible sources that aren’t online anymore. 2. There are plenty of others who have this award in conjunction with others on a project who are listed on wikipedia. The other awards appear to be “minor/non notable” to you, but they aren’t. And can you please elaborate what you mean by it is “too soon” for this entry into wikipedia? The Emmy was from 10 years ago. How much time needs to go by to validate one of the most well-respected awards in my industry? Can you please take your personal feelings out of this, make the edits and move on?

For example - Plenty of people NOMINATED, not won, listed here with multiple others and have their own article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Art_Direction_for_a_Miniseries_or_Movie

Jwl220d (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwl220d: I have no personal grudge, and indeed, a 7-day deletion discussion is probably the best way to get an unbiased consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). Others may well argue that your Emmy and the subsequent local news items are sufficient. Too soon (read the essay) means "Sometimes it's simply just too soon for some topics to have an article.", e.g. your achievements may not yet have been covered by enough third-party sources in depth to satisfy notability requirements. I would ask that you take your personal feelings out, and please understand that this discussion is not about you as a person or a professional, or even the fact that you created the article, it is about whether we can credibly make an article that is compliant with the policies of neutrality, verifiability, and No original research, following the various notability guidelines. In general, we only have articles on subjects that have received significant, third party discussion from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The existence of quality of other articles does not factor into this discussion , see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are over 5 million Wikipedia articles in various stage of development or notability, and any article can be nominated for deletion at any time. I don't commonly work on film/television articles, but from some of the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Art Direction for a Miniseries or Movie nominees, Walter H. Tyler won an Oscar and eight nominees, satisfying WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Similarly, William H. Tuntke was twice nominated for an Oscar, and as deceased there are likely obituaries that describe and contextualize his life and works, although if one failed to find adequate coverage one could propose deletion. What's more striking to me is the number of people in that Emmy category who don't have a Wikipedia article. They may well all have IMDb pages, but Wikipedia is not a database or "who's who". (FYI, see also guidelines on Citing IMDb and WikiProject FIlm guidelines on IMDb).

If you know of additional reliable, third-party sources that discuss your life and works, please list them here. They need not be online, as magazine, newspaper, TV, and radio coverage may be used. Again, notability is not inherited merely by working with notable people. The key grip on Star Wars doesn't have an article. Being notable on Wikipedia generally means you have been written about in detail by others over a period of time.

Lastly, I had considered removing everything aside from the ESPN work, but that brought up the issue of whether that alone satisfies notability guidelines. Leaving the article in its present form at least allows others to judge with more info. Consensus may decide to keep this article but condense it to a paragraph or two. Please take some time to read the guidelines and policies linked in blue above, as well as Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@--Animalparty! I've asked multiple times for edits to be made on an unbiased behalf, yet you decided to put this up for deletion without making the edits requested. I would go and do it, however, you contradicted yourself when you brought this up previously. Which is it? Can I edit myself or leave it unbiased? I even changed my username to appease you.

Furthermore, being nominated is much different than winning. I can't speak for others who have an Emmy, but I can mention many other people in film and television who have not won ANY awards yet, have wikipedia articles based on very small projects. Doesnt make sense, but it seems like you enjoy escalating this to a point where you want this deleted.

A key grip is a union worker and not considered talent within the film industry. Again, your making judgement calls for things you really know nothing about (IE: my other works and awards).

Youre not the first person to diminish my accomplishments and career. Doesnt bother me. The sources are there and credible. If you want to be petty, go ahead. This is the last time I will ask for the edits to be made or let me edit it myself. I'm really tired of going around and around about this. Ive tried to be cooperative and patient, but now I'm just annoyed that you're bullying me and singling me out. Best of luck Jwl220d (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. Here's a randomly chosen section (originally three paragraphs):

In 2015, Lee partnered{{Citation needed|date=January 2018}} with world-renowned photographer, [[Annie Leibovitz]] and [[UBS]] to brand the Women’s project - a worldwide exhibition visiting 10 global cities showcasing the work of Annie Leibovitz with influential women across the world. The exhibition featured a discussion, ‘Women for Women’, hosted by [[Annie Leibovitz]] and [[Gloria Steinem]]<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.vogue.com/article/women-new-portraits-annie-leibovitz-exhibition |title= Annie Leibovitz’s New Female Portrait Series Opens in New York in November |date= October 20, 2016 |website= vogue.com |publisher= Vogue}}</ref>. ¶ Featuring portraits of [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Michelle Obama]], [[Meryl Streep]], [[Queen Elizabeth II]], [[Adele]], [[Venus and Serena Williams]], and many others. The exhibition featured work spanning 20 years of Leibovitz’s career photographing influential and inspirational women<ref name="auto1"/>. ¶ Lee worked on the campaign to execute the branding, collateral and artwork used for the exhibitions across the world.<ref name="auto1"/>{{Fv|date=January 2018}}

The warning flags aren't mine. But I wouldn't argue with their deployment: I clicked on each link and in neither of the pages they pointed to did my browser detect the string "lee". Is his involvement something that comes up in the videos? (My browser won't play any of these.)

This looks to me like flimflam. I'm most willing to be persuaded that (A) I'm missing something in it; and no, Lee made an important and verifiable contribution to this exhibition. Alternatively, that (B) oopsie, yes, it is flimflam, but that it and every other dodgy part of this article has been deleted and that what remains verifiably shows that Lee is a person of encyclopedic significance. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those flags would be mine. I watched every single video, hoping there was something there, but... nothing. I also went through and deleted a bunch of entirely unsourced claims - All of the sources that mention Lee's presence are other user-edited sources. For instance, there was an album he supposedly did art for, and to source this he cited Discogs. I checked the album's actual credits on bandcamp, and... everyone else credited on Discogs was there but him. I've been avoiding wasting too much time trying to verify this one, but... it is looking more and more like flimflam the deeper I dive into it. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 14:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jwl220d A key grip is a union worker and not considered talent within the film industry. Again, your making judgement calls for things you really know nothing about (IE: my other works and awards). is pretty silly and meaningless because this is an encyclopedia and we rely verifiability, not truth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Google news, book and web searches return zero reliable sources.Not a notable individual by WP:GNG standards. The article subject himself says "I hope that you would not delete this page as if you do, I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information", so it seems like much time will be saved by salting the article as well.

104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the awards from "Interactive Media Awards" are ultra-flim-flam, basically a pay-to-play awards site that will give you an award for $195. Removed. Here's a list of the 2011 "outstanding achievement" recipients, including the previously cited 2011 award for the Disney check-in site. I had no idea people would pay for junk awards like this. Easy money. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go overboard here. First, like it or not, it is normal to be charged to enter a competition that, in principle, many people may enter. (However, $195 does seem a lot.) Secondly, this does seem to be a competition. This means that the $195 payment is necessary but in itself not sufficient. So to talk of "a pay-to-play awards site that will give you an award for $195" is misleading at best. OTOH, perhaps I've overlooked something and the website is indeed straightforwardly selling "awards": but if so, do please point me and others to the evidence for this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, have a look at their search page. There are over 100 categories that one can enter. In each category, a winner gets a "best in class" award; the rest get "outstanding achievement. Everyone gets a web page with a certificate. They also say you can suggest new categories if you do not see one that applies to your work. They are not trying to be very selective; rather they are trying to collect as much in application fees as possible. At best this is a very low-quality industry award, but I see it as a junk pay to play award based on the above.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard to pay for every award entry. Even the major ones such as Emmy, Oscar, Cannes Lion, Tony, Grammy. Not unusual at all. Salting this article is not the goal. If the Emmy is the only thing that stands, why can't this be edited down to show that? I've asked many times here. My point about "I hope that you would not delete this page as if you do, I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information" is that I was threatened for deletion about notability that is throughout Wikipedia with similar awards. The call to question was that it was a Conflict of Interest and my statement was that I could have someone else of importance verify the validity. Jwl220d (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP, please remain civil, and don't bite newcomers. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability in reliable secondary sources; I concur with all points made by the nominator and the other delete votes above. Rockypedia (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jwl220d (talk) I see that there have been many edits since this discussion. Is the current state of the article still up for deletion? It appears that it has been edited down to relevant sources that are in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Jwl220d (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this discussion will go for 7 days, or longer if consensus is not reached by them. Also, please only sign your comments/place your name at the end of a comment, otherwise it looks like you are addressing yourself. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete not named in Emmy award and fails WP:GNG. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BillHPike - What? Where do you see I am not named? I'm literally looking at the statue with my name on it right now in my office. Jwl220d (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably tired of this by now, but that is not a reliable source. Fortunately for you, this is. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 00:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" by A21sauce doesn't address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 08:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Betesh[edit]

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

What sources I could online tend to be more about protests against his building than himself, and even those that do mention him seem to be mostly local in nature and thus might not be enough to establish notability. His family's clothing chain currently does not have an article either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His firm bought buildings in one of the most sought-after areas of Manhattan. New York City is prominent, whether we like it or not, let's start providing up-to-date information on it. Also this New York Times article about his dad.--A21sauce (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not his dad, and notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you'd bother to read the other comments you'd see he has notability apart from Abe. But the fact that you know their relationship notes the notability of Abe Betesh.--A21sauce (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERIT; he's an ordinary landlord apart from that. The mentions of him in the references are either press releases or simply describe him as a bad landlord and aren't substantive coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is kicking 75-plus people out in the January cold "an ordinary landlord"? Always demoralizing to see low social mores in Wiki editors.--A21sauce (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a great deal of secondary source coverage, and likely to be more in the future, which supports the need for this entry. This kind of work would also help areas that need more coverage in Wikipedia such that on landlord harassment and WikiProject Urban studies.-Mozucat (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, even less tabloid news, and we should not have articles built around lines like "the tennants believe otherwise".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 5 February 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] ttp://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/114030/globe-media-awards-winners-bared

[2] ttp://newsroom.globe.com.ph/press-release/corporate/2016-11/5th-globe-media-excellence-awards.html#sthash.2Y0yDae8.dpbs

[1]

[2]