Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 February	13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture This! Entertainment[edit]

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

Article about a film distribution company, "referenced" only to its own (deadlinked) primary source content about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. But simply existing is not an automatic notability freebie for a company; an article has to be reliably sourced to enough media coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of links to non-notable fil≤ms is not appropriate as a article space page. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 17:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct, non notable company. There's is no sufficient sources to demonstrate Notability in my search and neither in the article. It is clear they were never notable at all.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. MarnetteD|Talk 14:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Donald1659 (talk) 19:22, 18 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) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microcinema International[edit]

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

Article about a film distribution company, not referenced to any reliable source coverage to get it over WP:CORPDEPTH. The only real "reference" here is the primary source website of one of the company's founders — and other than a two-sentence introduction stating that the company existed and then didn't anymore, the article is otherwise serving almost entirely as an WP:ELNO-violating linkfarm of inappropriate offlinks to the films' IMDb profiles. (Just two of the 74 titles link internally to a Wikipedia article about the film instead of to IMDb.) As always, Wikipedia is not a platform for creating finding aids to other websites' content -- this needs to be written as a properly referenced encyclopedia article about Microcinema, not just a list of its films, and the links in the list need to be internal wikilinks, not offsite links to IMDb. All the linkfarming leaves it quite close to being speediable as unambiguous advertising, in fact, with its fairly neutral writing tone being the only thing that stopped me. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious since there are no reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite some brief coverage of this company's initiatives such as Halloweird and an Independent Exposures competition, I am not seeing evidence to support the importance claim in the stub text. Without that, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 18 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) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theater 10:30[edit]

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

Article is the epitome of a stub, fails per WP:GNG and WP:N, no sources whatsoever provided, and the first result when searching for coverage of the subject quotes the Wikipedia article. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I ran a ProQuest search for older newspaper coverage, and was able to find a couple of very brief acknowledgements that this existed in coverage of CBC Radio's overall scheduling announcements — but those sources wouldn't enable me to add anything more to this article than what year it debuted and what year it was cancelled (which, for the record, were in the 1970s, not the 1950s as this article once claimed, so it's not "old time radio" either.) I was able to find nothing that would enable the addition of any real substance, or even to fill in all the "19xx-xx-xx" dates, because outside of that all I found was its presence (just as the overall series title, not as any individual episode titles) in the radio schedule grids that newspapers used to publish next to the TV listings. None of this represents substantive coverage for the purposes of getting it over WP:GNG, and per WP:NMEDIA the mere fact of being on CBC Radio is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts it from having to pass GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to a different set of newspapers than I've got can find more real coverage than I was able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no credible claim of notability. And not enough here for an article either.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual program was called "Theatre 10:30" (-re) so googling "Theater" (-er) skews the results. Having said that, my search (with adjusted spelling) pretty much yielded the same results as Bearcat. There may have been two separate programs on CBC called Theatre 10:30 -- one source makes mention of a Theatre 10:30 existing from 1955-1956. Other sources make reference to a program existing in 1968 and into the early 1970s. However, none of the sources go into any detail and one is a blog in any case. All we can be certain of is that a program or programs existed and that it was some sort of mystery anthology. The old time radio thing probably refers to a description of the program as in the style of old time radio, but was actually produced sometime between 1968 and into the 1970s. (As a side note, I recall hearing a radio mystery on CBC as a kid in the 1970s and the whole thing was done as a retro old-timey thing. It may have been this very program but I have no way of confirming it. Besides, my increasingly faltering memory probably fails WP:RS). It doesn't appear that any program under this title was notable enough to talk about in any reliable source beyond proving that it merely existed. Maybe there's a book out there that tells us more but failing that, I can't imagine this article could pass any standard for notability and I doubt it could even be written to any level of completeness as there's no known list of episodes or any information on such things as a host, performers, writers etc. freshacconci (✉) 18:48, 15 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 blasted into chunky kibbles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Consulting[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if one were inclined to try and untangle all the mind games and contradictory edits of the author and their sock puppets at its core the topic remains a PR setup claiming some WP:INHERITed notability from its dodgy clients. Cabayi (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to second comments above, this is a minor PR setup claiming WP:INHERITed notoriety through a few dodgy clients (or a competitor claiming the company has that notoriety for the same reason - either way, it's nuts). What's more, there seem to be WP:NPOV issues that nobody seems willing to sort out. Organiccovfefe (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Organiccovfefe (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC), possibly a sock of the author Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Boghog (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative antigen transfer[edit]

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

I can find only one source that discuss the topic cooperative antigen transfer, and that is a Ph.D thesis. Needs at a minimum an independent peer reviewed source. Boghog (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I will re-write the title of this article, to be more common and more often found in papers related to this problematics (BrezinaJiri (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for you positive response. If you rename the article to something that is more commonly used in the literature, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Boghog (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New title is supported by reliable sources. AfD withdrawn. Boghog (talk) 22:02, 12 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) 01:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indelible Music[edit]

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

Article about a record label, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. There is one actual reliable source here, but it just namechecks the label's existence in an article about the founder of the label, rather than being about the label, and the only other genuine reference is the primary source website of a non-notable musician managed by this label's founder. All five of the other "references" are detail-expanding footnotes rather than actual sources. This is not how you source a record label as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little depth of coverage in reliable source. This source, like others, make trivial mention of this company. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find a reliable source. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:22, 19 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) 01:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Records[edit]

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

Article about a record label, citing no reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, and not even really making any notability claim at all except releasing one album by a non-notable artist which had notable session musicians on it. But that's not an automatic pass of our notability standards for record labels -- a notability claim has to be properly referenced, not just asserted, before it actually translates into a reason for a Wikipedia article. There's also a direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the non-notable artist. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable record label. I could find no reliable, independent sources that gave any sort of information from which to build a verifiable article. No evident cultural or musical influence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:23, 19 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) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clown House Records[edit]

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

Article about a record label, not referenced to any reliable source coverage to get it past WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, record labels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but the references here are a public relations blog, two of its own primary sources about itself, an Eventbrite ticket listing, and a source which tangentially verifies the existence of something else named in this article but fails to mention this company's name at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source a record label as notable. There's also a direct conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of one of the company's founders. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. The only source I found providing significant coverage is this, but this source is questionable in terms of reliability, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their website is dead, their facebook page has 2 posts, the company had assets of £20 when its accounts were last made up. I'm guessing they realised there is no money to be made from giving away your goods for free - and went to do something else. Szzuk (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and hurrah to Bearcat who attempted to analyze the encyclopedic value of this record label article beyond CORP. The nom gets this right, this record label has made no artistic or cultural impact, as demonstrated by lack of notable signed artists, lack of history of notable releases, and no verifiable evidence the label has made any musical impact in geographic or genre context. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 19 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 to Lighthouse keeper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stag light[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to lighthouse keeper as the issue of staffing with families ought to be dealt with there. Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Mangoe. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mangoe. Having found a couple of fractionally better passing references I've shifted slightly away from suggesting deletion on the grounds of it being just a colloquial term. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mangoe, a better option than simple deletion...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:32, 16 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 to Stainless steel strainer. There's clear consensus here that this shouldn't be an article, but opinions are all over the map on what to do with it. WP:ATD argues against a straight delete, so we're left with merging it somewhere. I've somewhat arbitrarily picked Stainless steel strainer at the target, but I doubt anybody who participated in this discussion would be upset if it got merged to one of the other possibilities mentioned here, and that can be worked out on the article talk pages without need for further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sink drain cover[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NAD Enwebb (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to drain cover, if references can be found. No need for a separate article yet, and neither stub article has a single reference. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sink#Accessories; not independently notable. "Sink" seems like a better target, vs "drain cover". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Sink, as per K.e.coffman, but not to the 'Accessories' section because drains and strainers are mentioned higher up in that article, too, and less so in that section. But I'm not fussed.~~ Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have just spotted a better redirect opportunity to: Stainless steel strainer which seems to cover exactly the same topic. (Much older, but equally unreferenced) Nick Moyes (talk)

Delete These are actually called "Sink strainers" or "basket strainers", not "sink drain covers", which are completely different things altogether. That said, I could not find sources that would make this meet WP:GNG, so delete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stainless steel strainer --DexterPointy (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into section in Sink, which can then reference Stainless steel strainer --DexterPointy (talk) 19:18, 19 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) 16:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Press[edit]

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

Primary source. A WP:BEFORE cant find any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Mostly unsourced, and I can find nothing about him online apart from a few mini-CVs like this on the usual self-promotion sites. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources. Donald1659 (talk) 20:06, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shada Ar Laal[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets WP:NSONG Enwebb (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - I think you're wasting your time. Several of my articles were previosly nominated for discussion, but were strongly supported by wikipedians in cases they had citation from The Daily Star, Prothom Alo or Kaler Kantho, top three newspapers in Bangladesh. These sources are always reliable for wikipedia. Lets see what the others think. A video with a lakh views in a week is very special in Bangladesh. Makhamakhi (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Makhamakhi. I mean no offense by nominating your article, and I hope you can assume good faith on my part instead of saying that I'm wasting my time. With this article, I was specifically thinking about the part of WP:NSONG here: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." It may be an outcome that the song warrants coverage in context of the album or the artist, rather than its own page. No hard feelings. Enwebb (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the creator of this page, Makhamakhi, has been indefinitely blocked because of "Disruptive editing: Continuation of same behavior on a shocking scale, even after they were explicitly warned that they'd be indefinitely blocked if they kept it up" by Swarm. --আফতাব (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A bunch of youtube views doesn't cut it. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy the criteria under WP:NSONG. I would suggest that consideration be given by the article's creator to merge any relevant information to the article on the artist. Dan arndt (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that this song's only claim to fame is that its video was noticed by a newspaper due to the movie star's appearance. The song itself has not received much notice otherwise. The singer's collaboration with the actress could possibly be mentioned at his article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy (band)[edit]

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

An unreferenced article on a band "who achieved minor successes from their albums." No sources in English or on the Korean Wikipedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability.

Interviews: #1, #2, #3, #4 etc in Korean
main news: Yonhap in Korean

Thanks. --Garam (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it took a while, but I found stuff on Naver-K-popguardian (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources that prove anything further than their mere existence. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes second criterion of WP:BAND. Technogoofy charted at #34 on Korea's national album chart [1], as did No4 Goofy [2]. ℯ xplicit 00:57, 19 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 bad-faith nomination by sockpuppet account. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Consulting[edit]

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

Clearly an attack piece on a minor PR and lobbying firm that is not deserving of a Wikipedia article ParisClementine (talk) 17:39, 12 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) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retekulation[edit]

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

I don't normally do product AfDs but this one jumped out at me as particularly problematic. There are all the usual issues: SPE creator, lack of good GHits, no sources, no GBook hits at all, promotional tone.... Just not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term "Retekulation" isn't even used on United Retek Corporation's site; "The Retek Process" being used instead. Their site also makes clear this is just a marketing term for one company. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 19 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 keep. WP:SKCRIT#2 - Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racemandu[edit]

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

Lack of References. Not enough reliable sources ! SeytX (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a reliable source i.e. The Himalayan Times (Nepalese newspaper) here which clearly states - being an event of Nepal. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 16:14, 13 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) 01:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabor Rotation[edit]

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

I would expect that a teaching technique would have traces in academic literature, but the only paper I found was published in the journal of a state math teachers association. All citations are to Tabor's website. Possibly the link to Regent University scared people off, but at any rate I see no serious interest in this. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found these - PR about TR, download site with more PRs, a mention in Science for Primary and Early Years , Developing Subject Knowledge, NCTM TR conference session, and a teacher's blog extolling TR but i do not believe these amount to notability ie. is it an official part of the curriculum?, hopefully some wikieducationeditors can assist. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blog posts, press releases and content-free mentions in the swamp of Wikipedia mirrors floating around Google Books aren't reliable sources. Nor is an abstract for a conference session led by Tabor herself. There just isn't anything out there worth writing about. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 19 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 List of bus routes in Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KMB Route 71B[edit]

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

Probably fails GNG, though the zhwiki article has two non-primary non-fansite possible RSes. I have not thoroughly looked for sources, but its only notable feature appears to be that it is very short and it is otherwise unremarkable. Jc86035 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTTRAVEL (there is little to the article other than telling you where a bus route goes). This information probably belongs in a list. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTTRAVEL. No indication of being more than just another route.Charles (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N depends on the content and reliability of Chinese Wikipedia sources. WP:NOTTRAVEL isn't a valid reason for deletion here, as content is not like a travel guide and would not be suitable for one. Peter James (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in Hong Kong. Bus routes are mostly non-notable, and a search only turned up bus fansites and KMB official information. zhwiki article's sources are mostly bus fansites as well. Thus fails GNG. R22-3877 (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The article itself isn't notable, but a redirect still helps a reader who searched that topic.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:13, 18 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. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaki Crush[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. No reason was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reasoning from the prod: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. No indication of notability - on the contrary, the article outright declares that the subject is "very obscure" - and only one cited source. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have a few different reviews on Mobygames [3]. With it being a Japanese game release (from 1992), I find it hard to believe it doesn't have paper coverage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in Superplay 05, N-Force 10, GamePower Brazil 08, Markt & Technik's Video Games, April '93, and Aktueller Software Markt, April '93. These are all independently published magazines featuring non-trivial coverage of Jaki Crush. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 13:02, 13 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) 16:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Swain[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to verify this BLP. Mattg82 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I could find about him was some local news about events at his church 1 and a book that he was listed as a contributer in 2, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG Cait.123 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source here that is not directly linked to the parish he leads, is a press release from a group he belongs to, which even at that is not about him and briefly quotes him in one paragraph.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:25, 17 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) 01:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William 'Bill' Corbett[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CELEBRITY, WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST, and WP:MUSICBIO which are the standards by which this WP:BLP should be judged for notability. Corbett was interviewed a few times as an expert in certain obscure ideas, and his potential notability as a member of a chart-appearing band would imply that a reasonable redirect for this article would be to The Apostles. His solo music, brief appearances in movies, and visual art work does not seem notable while his flights of fancy about Shakespeare have not made any mainstream waves. jps (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if it matters today, but the previous AFD was started by the articlesubject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a sufficiently notable person for an article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC); amended 18:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alexbrn: Please consider rephrasing your comment along the lines of XOR'easter's above (phrased to focus on policy, not the person). This is not just a BLP, but a BLP about an editor here, and one that is very likely to read these comments. How we phrase such things does matter. --Xover (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability of the person is the key policy issue here; I have linked to make this plain. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Apostles. It's the only notable topic with which this person is associated. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @ජපස: To describe 15 years research and a book as 'flights of fancy about Shakespeare' is quite insulting as my entire proposal is based on documented facts, I wanted this bio deleted 8 years ago, so go ahead, knock yourself out. Billdup (talk)
  - I am sorry if you find this discussion insulting. The fact of the matter is that you are not the first nor will you be the last person to think that they have discovered the truth about Shakespeare. It is an occupational hazard to be exposed to the harsh WP:MAINSTREAM critique here at this website owing to the fact that we simultaneously accept all comers while not giving WP:UNDUE treatment to WP:FRINGE proposals such as yours. My advice to you is to promote your research outside of this venue. However, as to your request to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this is something we should take under advisement in this situation since it seems clear that notability is, at best, marginal. jps (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems fair, given that the subject and article creator himself has more objectively determined he isn't independently wiki-notable outside of his music career, which, I agree, is best as a redirect to The Apostles. The New York Times interview re: his photography is not about him, rather it is about the place/event he is photographing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP request. Szzuk (talk) 09:59, 19 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 Procedural keep Wrong venue as title was redirect before nomination, but unlikely to be deleted here or at WP:RfD as a prime annual cultural event. Nominator is warned to read our policies after previous issues with film industry deletion nominations. (non-admin closure). Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

91st Academy Awards[edit]

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

Delete Nothing is mentioned for the upcoming 91st Academy Awards which will be held somewhere in February 2019. This page was created just for nothing right now. This is why it should be deleted. Evil Idiot (talk) 15:40, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirects are Cheap. While yes it was a bit early a few weeks ago to create a page for the event itself, the 90th happens next month, and I feel like it was perfectly fine to leave the redirect rather than removing it and nominating article for deletion. This is certainly going to happen (date's already been set "2/24/19 on ABC".), and I don't see point in blank a redirect just for an article to be created in a month or so. In future rather than blanking the page and then creating an AfD, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion would be better option. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per reasons WikiVirusC suggested above. Information about the event will soon be released and a full article can be made then. Cait.123 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect restored as procedural Evil Idiot, it was a redirect before you removed it and brought it immediately to AfD. Thus, the nomination was disqualified from that moment because it should have been something for WP:RfD. Per WP:CHEAP this is going to happen outside of intervention by earthquakes/meteors, and this nomination is a waste of the community's time. Read WP:AfD and WP:RfD left-to-right before you nominate again. In the meantime, I'm closing this to save seven days of needless discussion. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 13 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 Draftify. SpinningSpark 23:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Kling (American football)[edit]

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

After 3 seasons, has not played in any regular or postseason games so he doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Doesn't have any coverage in WP:RSes outside of routine coverage after being signed or released from teams therefore doesn't pass WP:GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he's still under contract with Washington I'd say that makes him presumptively WP:N as there is still a good chance he could still play a regular season game. If he's a free agent I would change my vote to delete. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Delete, but perhaps keep source somewhere. Updating as I was wrong. I feel as if this is a borderline case where he's not quite notable. Since there's nothing otherwise wrong with the article, and since it's the offseason and we'll know relatively soon if notability will be established (new non-reserve contract or release), perhaps we keep the source somewhere (perhaps this is done automatically with admin tools.) SportingFlyer (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think this should be done often - my recommendation is due to the timing of the delete shortly after the start of the offseason and a rule saying you can't spend more than 3 seasons on a practice squad (Kling has possibly played three seasons). SportingFlyer (talk)

Being under contract doesn't mean they are notable or presumptive notable. No where on Wikipedia will that apply for any sport. As I said in nomination it's been 3 seasons and he hasn't played one single regular season game. The article being created now versus when he was first signed to a team a few years ago, its no difference. If in the future he gets to play a game then yes he will be notable, but until then, just like the rest of football players that haven't played, he isn't notable yet. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we're going to need to delete a lot of NFL practice squad articles. I think he meets notability guidelines now but may not in the future. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles that don't meet guidelines can be nominated for deletion as well, but that is separate from this nomination. And notability isn't temporary, once he is notable he will forever be considered notable for Wikipedia, so there is no scenario where someone is notable now and might not be in future. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not keep articles because the person might meet notability requirements in the future, we do so based on their actually meeting them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per this NBC Sports story on Kling (also referenced here), he also played for the Philadelphia Soul in the Arena Football League. Doesn't this give him presumed notability under WP:NGRIDIRON? Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He signed with them, it does not say he played any games. Unless you can find a source that says so. For reference he signed with the Sol after the 2016 season[4], with plans to play in 2017 season. He then signed with Redskins April 6th, 2017[5]. The 2017 Arena Football League season didn't begin until April 7th, and Philadelphia didn't play until the 15th, and he was already with the Redskins practice squad. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be sound analysis. It appears he's bounced around a bit. Some sources indicate he also spent time with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers in the CFL. See here. Are you aware of any sources to determine whether he played in any games with the Blue Bombers? Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw mentions of his time in CFL, but no mention of playing games. His CFL profile doesn't list any games, but I don't follow CFL and am not sure how acurate that is. Article from a site/blog that follows his college team says he was a practice squad member while in CFL. May 4, 2017(After signing with Skins) But I can't find anything more reliable than that after a quick search. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also wouldn't this feature story qualify as significant coverage in a reliable, independent source? Cbl62 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would qualify as one incident of coverage, but not significant coverage by itself. It is routine coverage from the local paper about a player on their sports team. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The "significant" element concerns depth of coverage. The Chicago Sun-Times article has such depth of coverage. Passing mentions and statistical data may be considered WP:ROUTINE, but an in-depth feature story is not. Of course, GNG requires multiple instances of significant coverage, so we are not yet there. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW. In addition to (1) the Chicago Sun-Times feature story (here), and (2) the NBC Sports story (here), searches turn up the following: (3) "UB tackle Kling adapting well to left side; switch gives better shot to impress NFL scouts", The Buffalo News, 10/9/15 (656 words, full access requires payment); (4) Kling cashes in on an opportunity, The Buffalo News, 11/3/13 (570 words, but not all about Kling); (5) "John Kling signs with Washington Redskins", Pro Football Weekly, 4/13/17 (requires payment, 455 words); and (6) "John Kling signs with Washington Redskins", The Spectrum (arguably, not independent), 4/13/17. I'm still undecided, but it's a close call. He does have a great nickname though: the 6'7" 313 pounder is known as "Kling Kong". Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Borderline notability with a good chance to meet it within the G13 window, so no point in erasing the content entirely. ansh 666 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a difficult time believing that there's no coverage of his college career given the time he's spent nearly making an active NFL roster... not taking a position yet, just hoping (hope is not a reason to keep or delete) that we can find more.--Paul McDonald (talk)
There is coverage from his time in college from local Buffalo papers, and mentions from the college Newspaper as he tried to make NFL rosters that Cbl62 linked out above. He was signed to teams, just never played, and with each signing(or release) in NFL, there is routine coverage from localized and national venues. He has about as much as you would expect there to be. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sportswriters aren't exactly in a hurry to dull their pencil tips over offensive linemen. Lizard (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. It's WP:TOOSOON - this shouldn't have been posted to main space yet. I'd weakly support if someone wants to draftify to save the work should he eventually play in an NFL game. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:00, 20 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) 01:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data Foundry[edit]

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

This article has been flagged as an advertisement for over 6 years with no improvement. The top line consists mostly of marketing speak, the 'See also' section is merely a list of services they offer, and the external links are all social media pages for the company. The only pieces of marginally encyclopedic content are the major sections on data center specifications, which are also arguably more appropriate for their website. Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 15:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also encourage you to view the page's revision history. Not only do some of the more recent edits (from 2015, nonetheless) come from an obvious organization account, but the IP addresses belong to the company as well. Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 16:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, ever? Delete this tech-spec advertising sheet. Rhadow (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhadow's comment. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTAD Coolabahapple (talk) 19:50, 17 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 Procedural Close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grenz, Egon[edit]

Grenz, Egon redirects to Egon Krenz. But Grenz is not a frequent misspelling of his name. --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not at AfD. Mduvekot (talk) 15:26, 12 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) 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Low[edit]

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

Not notable - fails WP:NHOCKEY guidelines, his professional career was only within minor leagues. PK T(alk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
20 Mule-Team Delete: A fringe third- and fourth-liner in the low minors, there's never been any version of NHOCKEY he'd come remotely close to meeting. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia edit was creating this article, and it's sad it took us eight years to catch up to it. Ravenswing 22:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NHOCKEY SportingFlyer (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dare I suggest a speedy delete? ....PK T(alk) 01:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's best to let the AFD process take its course, as there are no criteria met for speedy deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't meet speedy criteria at all since it claims notability by stating he played on pro teams. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and doesn't come close to meeting any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 22:30, 18 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) 01:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Artuković[edit]

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

fighter had routine cover fights, fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Fails WP:NMMA with only routine sports coverage.PRehse (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't meet any SNG. He has no top tier fights, thus failing WP:NMMA, and I see nothing in his wrestling or Muay Thai careers to meet WP:NSPORT, WP:NKICK, or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 18 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) 16:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of House Prices Sold in the United States[edit]

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

Can't really see that this is a suitable topic for an article (houses cost more as time goes by, so what?? & without adjustment for inflation the figures are meaningless): I imagine there is a suitable redirect target, however TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RAWDATA. No redirect, as the title is ungrammatical (prices aren't sold). Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails RAWDATA and seems to be OR, as it is based only on a primary source. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title is not suitable for becoming a redirect. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah![[WP:RAWDATA}} is new to me, useful.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks context and, as noted, does seem to be original research. Dunarc (talk) 19:37, 14 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.

You are right about the bad title. Instead of deleting the article, the title should be corrected to "Timeline of House Prices in the United States". The reason I used the word "sold" is to make it more accurate and closer to the source's title, but I didn't realize how awkward it sounds at the time. The article is useful to anyone who studies housing. People often want the original prices too, and not the prices adjusted for inflation. It seems incomplete to leave these prices out of all the housing articles on Wikipedia. This article is similar in nature to Timeline of the United States housing bubble. If Timeline of House Prices in the United States does not exist, then maybe it's prices should be added to Timeline of the United States housing bubble. Those who write articles for Wikipedia are criticized for both unoriginal research and original research, oddly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMG123 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe Business & Economics Group[edit]

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

Non-notable university club; with the exception of a single magazine article, all sources given are in-house or incidental listings. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most groups centered on one university do not meet criteria for Notability. JimNemcovic (talk) 16:27, 14 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. Regardless of Makhamakhi being blocked, a ‘keep’ !vote with no recommendations or arguments will be discounted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Babu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arun babu

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

I mentioned the AfD and speedy-deletion of a previous article instance in the recent AfD of an article on his father (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cletus Babu) but it is now clearer that they are distinct though involved in the same organisation. Regarding the present article, I have removed a WP:BLPPROD because passing mentions such as this and on his employer's website provide basic biographical verification. However whether these amount to notability is dubious. Neither his job at Deloitte (including an in-role SABC interview), nor his role at his father's organisation seems sufficiently substantial to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The individual is an unremarkable MD of a possible non-notable company, I cannot find in-depth coverage in any mainstream reliable independent sources. The article is essentially just a PR/spam piece promoting the individual and was created by a single purpose account. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makhamakhi (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Makhamakhi, has been indefinitely blocked because of "Disruptive editing: Continuation of same behavior on a shocking scale, even after they were explicitly warned that they'd be indefinitely blocked if they kept it up" by Swarm. --আফতাব (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. Fails WP:BIO. All the references are passing mention. The article is more like a promo for the individuals.--Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 03:17, 15 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) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Solgaard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating after the page popped up in my watchlist when Rayman60 left a talk page message. The previous AfD in 2016 was closed as NC because of quorum (though I think it could have been closed as delete within discretion); the issue has not gone away, raising a large amount of money on Kickstarter is no grounds for notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I mistakenly CSD'd it but I think it's an open and shut case of fails GNG and associated projects don't confer notability. Shameless promotion from a SPA. The only issue last nom was a counter argument from our SPA and lack of quorom as mentioned by Tigraan. Rayman60 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inventing something is not an automatic free pass over our notability standards for businesspeople in and of itself, but the sourcing here is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — the references are all either his own self-published primary sources about himself, or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him. And even some, although admittedly not all, of the glancing namechecks are in blogs rather than reliable sources, to boot. There might, maybe, be enough coverage to support articles about his products, but there isn't the kind of sourcing we require to properly support a biography of him. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one RS and added it, but it's not enough.104.163.148.25 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is subpar, and not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 13 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) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtehaj Khurram[edit]

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

WP is not for profiling purposes. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per nom. samee ^talk 17:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 05:50, 13 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) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Butt[edit]

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

Not significant career yet. Fails WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can reference it better than this. Simply appearing on TV is not, in and of itself, an automatic WP:NACTOR pass just because the person's existence can technically be verified — but the sourcing here, which consists mostly of blogs and primary sources, is not solid enough to get him over WP:GNG for appearing on TV. The only actual reliable source references here are namechecking him specifically in the context of a single event that just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best, and are just covering the event itself without delving into any biographical information about him. That's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azmi Haq[edit]

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

WP is not for profiling purposes. This autobio fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. This is just promotion. Quis separabit? 03:29, 15 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Naseem[edit]

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

Nothing notable currently in his career. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability, looks like OR. samee ^talk 14:29, 16 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. I have disregarded accounts that were created purely for the purpose of "voting" here, and salted the title per advice below. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Prakash Varrier[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: an actor with a single film that has not yet released. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep as per WP:NACTOR criteria 2 (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following) is met as per various major news/media such as NDTV - [6], Hindustan Times - [7], Indian Express - [8] discussing this subject. Ashishjacob07 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She is now a Celebrity with almost all news outlets reporting about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzd (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now have a very large fan base and following. Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Movie has not released yet. Having a fan base without any professional work should not be regarded for any page to be kept. User:Angelina Winget AW —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable internet personality and clearly a public figure with numerous news articles, Treading on Google, Facebook, Instagram and IMDB. Wikipedia has a lot articles about internet sensation and this girl is now international level sensation which is notable for a Wiki page. --119.30.35.151 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)— 119.30.35.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Absolute Keep This poll is purely a waste of time. Now there is hardly any media outlet in Indian national media that has not published an article on the subject - which clearly meets WP:BASIC. (Not to mention, the girl already has 1.5 million followers on Instagram as of now.) 2405:204:60A2:905F:4855:1E89:DB85:13E2 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:60A2:905F:4855:1E89:DB85:13E2 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Struck per this - they deleted some of their ratonale but left the sig hanging etc - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Movie has not been released yet. This person doesn't have any merit to deserve a page. Just raising eyebrows and featuring in a single viral video doesn't command the need to have a Wiki page. This fan base is purely temporary and simply an impulsive action. It would be like having a page for every new viral video. This shows how our worldview has deteriorated to a lower level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.227.208 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — 117.249.227.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Doesn't qualify for WP:NACTOR, as no film roles in released films (would require multiple anyway). Viral maybe, but no significant coverage of the actress herself in reliable sources except in relation to the viral video. WP:BLP1E applies to the viral video she became internet famous for (for a wink in a viral song video of all things). Does not meet WP:GNG notability requirements. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. The press coverage is for a brief wink she makes in a trailed video clip of a song from a film that has not even been released yet. The usually Indian movie PR machine, the usual slavish Indian press, and a group of randy young oglers salivating over a YouTube clip does not notability make. Fails WP:NACTOR and meets WP:BLP1E. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources say very little about her. Maybe once the film is released, she will become notable. Maproom (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that Morgan Spurlock showed you can get featured in an indian paper simply by making a small monetary payment, so I discount glowing coverage in the Indian press as not as significant as similar coverage in developed countries. The subject fails our most basic policies on notability and the page should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from this AfD's talk page - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Do not delete the article as this is most searched now a days for wikipedia details. She become famous after her video gone viral. I have added some more details and photo too . From three days her video is also shared by media.And print media also seen reporting and publishing on her. In my opinion this will be very helpful for their fan. Sanyogchourasia (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NACTOR. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article doesn't qualifies WP:NACTOR.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a case could be made for passing WP:GNG but the vast majority of Google hits are about that wink, which is about as WP:BLP1E as it gets, thus also fails WP:SUSTAINED. Fails WP:NACTOR since the movie isn't even released. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a massive amount of incredibly-recent coverage. By Friday it should be easier to assess whether this is substantial or sustained. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki, It is all for a WP:BLP1E though. I suspect she will be notable for WP:SUSTAINED merits in the future after the film's release (possibly after being in multiple films). But for now it is WP:TOOSOON. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She is the most discussed young actor on twitter and most of the international news media is covering her news. --Nahid Hossain (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
StrongKeep. She is the most discussed young actor from Kelera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beloved Kashmiriyat (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC) — Beloved Kashmiriyat (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]
Comment Priya Varrier is one of the most trending women on internet now. i will add more sources to the article. (Fbofficl (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Lots of online coverage to cite the article as well as now 1 million followers on instagram. Thanks.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 10:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and WP:1E (notable only for one event) and WP:TOOSOON - article is the result of a recentism, we need to look at the larger picture, she received popularity in last few days and there's no guarantee that she stay notable 1 year from now or even 6 months, fan following or the current "web talk" could cease. Also, fails WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia do not predict future, she is a "soon to be an actress" in an "upcoming" film, with presently only one wink credit in a song. There's no deadline, it's always good to wait. --Let There Be Sunshine 10:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lovely girl+catchy tune in a movie trailer+press hungry for delivering a quick fix to the masses ≠ notability per WP:BASIC; there simply isn't sig. coverage here. WP:NACTOR isn't met either. Sam Sailor 12:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mainly per Let There Be Sunshine. Fails WP:NACTOR and is WP:TOOSOON. Articles that are based on 'trending' in social media and an upcoming debut are not usually kept. If notability is established at a later date, the subject may indeed be good enough for an article. As it stands, not yet. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NACTOR. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unnecessary importance being given to a random person. Doesn’t deserve a Wiki article as of yet. As per WP:NACTOR as well. D4R1U5 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She became the most searched Indian celebrity on Google, above Deepika Padukone, Alia Bhatt and Sunny Leone. India.com - [9] Prasannjeet (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading that crap source properly, it is saying she has become the most sourced in this particular week, not over time. It just illustrates the flash-in-the-pan thing - no lasting notability based on it. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NACTOR.--IamIRAQI (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTYET and WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Its Just a social media only that never leads to wikipedia guidelines and also the content is promotional in nature. LR23 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC) ]— LR223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Yeah, a bunch of social media blowups, but fails NACTOR L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not met any notability guideline one would care to name. Always good to hear from the subject's fans, though. Looks to me like the article does more to fan the flames of fandom than to build the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a fanclub. Nor is it instagram. Publicity surrounds a publicity boosting BLP1E. Hopefully her publicist can boost her career to the point where she does meet GNG. For now, just a flash in the pan. So TOOSOON, if ever. That boosterism needs to be done w/o Wikipeia's help. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot-- Wikipeida is no teh news. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt All the press coverage is for a single clip of an unreleased film and the subject does not currently pass WP:NACTOR or WP:SUSTAINED. If the article is deleted due to the current hype on this there is a chance that this will be recreated so I recommend salting this too. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt per all the delete votes above. Whenever she passes GNG, the article can be created again. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt i agree with usernamekiran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidushyant (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: None of the information is wrong, I guess the prime purpose of this place is to share information, none should judge the person, where she is good bad ugly famous infamous whether fans loves the person or hates whatever.. Those who are currently debating on these types of silly issues should refrain to the same. I strongly support to keep this article as its just proving some information about a person and some incident which has actually happened. No fictitious data is provided. 14.139.219.2 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— 14.139.219.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Dbsseven (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clears GNG by a mile. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article..." Additionally a police complaint has been filed against her for hurting religious sentiments of Muslims, so there is a multi-dimensional notability.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs)
- @Yogesh Khandke: She doesnt pass GNG, she is an example of WP:1E. The source you provided, states However, they have submitted only a written complaint and no FIR has been filed against anyone yet. In truth however, according to first post: Khan alleges that the lyrics of the song insult Prophet Muhammad when translated to English. He has maintained that those who find the lyrics hurtful, have nothing against its actress. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-- WP:BLP1E has been wrongly cited here. I quote

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

She has become notable, she has a Verified badge on Instagram, available according to their policy only to "only some public figures, celebrities and brands..."[11] she has more followers (23 lakh) than established stars such as Anushka Shetty who has 20 lakh.[12] It isn't an event that has made her notable, such as a being perpetrator or victim of a crime, ( 1 and 3 in wp:BLP1E), also one doesn't need to be a soothsayer to foresee that she won't fade away, considering that her movie is to be released, on the flip side, there is no way to know for certain that she will remain a low-profile individual in the future as per ( 2 in wp:BLP1E). WP:TOOSOON similarly doesn't apply, this article isn't based on an achievement that hasn't yet materialised, such as being signed for a film wp:SUSTAINED, is like wp:BLP1E that I've discussed in detail above, recentism also relates to events such as hurricanes of temporary interest. WP:NACTOR is a strawman argument, no one claims she is a notable actor. She's a celebrity, the internet made her, I don't say so, multiple independent reliable sources say so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be reliable for one thing and not for another. No Indian news outlet is reliable for fancruft stuff - they are all slavish followers of publicist's tripe, they all copy off each other, they all engage in breathless prose (except, perhaps, The Hindu), and quite a few are happy to take money to print this type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't indulge in wp:OR or rant or should I say cant against India, Indian internet users India news media, also BBC too is sloshing in the mud by your own definition.[13] Provide evidence that her Instagram badge has been fixed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also save your breath for those who have been called "our cousins across the Atlantic..." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a decade-long-editing career, if you are saying that a blue badge on Instagram equates to encyclopedic notability and provide links to GOP-websites to criticize foreign-media, you are either incompetent or you are plainly trolling. AGFing, I will assume the former.And, ....so there is a multi-dimensional notability. was a stunner.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a reflection of reliable sources, not a den of wp:OR enthusiasts, reliable sources discuss the fact of her receiving a verified badge. They have found it notable enough to comment on. I've not pulled this out of a hat. I'm not saying anything about anyone, I'm merely reproducing what wp:RS (or you say GOP official website isn't one) has to offer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh, you have a record here for pro-Hindu nationalist editing, including regularly being in the minority in discussion at WT:INB about all sorts of sourcing issues + having had editing restrictions in place. I suggest that you back off. Stirring up up like you did, with a dedicated Controversy section in a BLP, based on someone filing a FIR, is something you know you should not do but, of course, it suits the agenda, doesn't it? I have commented further at the article talk. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual complete rubbish, including regarding wp:INB a place i've not been in ages, this is a AfD, bring up facts regarding the AfDs I voted and how they went. Also don't go all over the place with content arguments, keep them on the article talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke, Sitush, and Winged Blades of Godric: We are getting off the subject here. There are a tons of pornstars on twitter, instagram, and facebook that have verified accounts; but they do not pass the notability criteria. "One event" is vague title to cover a few different scenarios. We shouldnt take everything to the word. Till now, whatever has happened with Varrier boiles down to only one reason, no different/multiple reasons. man! closing this discussion would be a feat in itself. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place to soapbox against one's favourite peeve, for some it is India or Hindus, for you it seems to be porn-stars. There are clear guidelines for acceptability of a particular subject as an article, they aren't related to whether the subject is a porn-star or an Indian or a Hindu. My understanding of guidelines is that Varrier passes them. Multiple reliable sources mention her verified Instagram account and the number of her followers, so I mentioned it, I hope you understand the difference, which isn't too subtle. A Wikipedia article is to be a balanced reflection of what reliable sources. Read the delete votes, their problem is about Indian sources, or about what I read implies as sex-starved Indians who made her a celebrity, or that a wink can't be reason for an article, there is a quixotic remark about Hindu nationalist conspiracy in mentioning the FIR regarding insult to Mohammad, here. We are not here to sit on judgement, Wikipedia is edited by anonymous editors, it is assumed that they have no expertise, not even in Freudian psychoanalysis, other than that of finding, choosing and honestly representing information from good sources, in a balanced manner. Unfortunately the debate from one side reeks of should I say incompetence in understanding Wikipedia esp. wp:OR, more sad because opinions of "seniors" is claimed to have more weight. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable internet personality and clearly a public figure with numerous news articles, Treading on Google, Facebook, Instagram and IMDB. Wikipedia has a lot articles about internet sensation and this girl is now international level sensation which is notable for a Wiki page. Che12Guevara 18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)

Note to closer: please see talk re: this !vote. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably as soon as possible as winking in a video is absolutely not an indication of notability and then after that, block all the socks. Good lord. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beloved Kashmiriyat filed, if you have anything to help it would be appreciated. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CU bounced, SPI closed as unlikely. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a policy-based vote. If there are socks in this discussion, their votes should be struck. Once the film is released, it will be borderline for inclusion. If having an article about this person for a month before this film comes out will bring editors interested in Indian culture to the project, I encourage it. There are a massive number of articles about other people in this field that need improvements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to rally the troops for any given subject. She's either notable at the time of this discussion or not and so far, there is literally nothing to indicate this person meets any inclusion criteria. It can be reassessed when and if she receives the necessary coverage but saying that "it will bring editors interested in xyz" to the project is a ridiculous reason to keep an article that doesn't meet inclusion criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally saying to violate WP:CRYSTAL. She isnt notable now. And if she becomes notable in the future, then the article can be created without any opposition. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the opposite of violating WP:CRYSTAL. She is not notable now and we should not keep an article because she might be in the future. If she becomes notable, then by all means, the article should be recreated but until that time, well... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: I apologise for the confusion. I was referring to power~enwiki's statement in my previous comment. You n me are saying the same thing. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She is a geniune Artist. The references links are reliable and the person has millions of fanbase on instagram and trending on social networking sites. I saw many comments of different peoples regarding her movie. Yes it is not released yet but the music video of the movie is already released from which we can know she is notable. So, i personally suggest to keep the page. SeytX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — SeytX (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Gaurav456 (talk • contribs). – Struck above !vote from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 15:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and other actors dont actually act, but act to act and not really act?; and hence are not genuine artists? But wouldnt that make such "fake" actors even better than the actors who just act, and not act to act? apologies. but I couldnt help myself from making a joke.—usernamekiran(talk) 23:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really much of an argument to keep the article. Since 1) what reliable sources are there stating she is an artist? 2) a big social media fan base, without reliable sourcing, does not notability make 3) social media comments are not reliable sourcing 4) the music video falls into WP:BLP1E territory 5) an unreleased movie falls afoul of one of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Blackmane (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oru Adaar Love: The subject has received some attention for her debut film and its viral trailer but this doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. This is WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E case. Deleting it outright isn't a good option, considering the kind of attention the subject has gained (On 13 February, her article received 321,000 views). The reason for her popularity presently is the film trailer and this information can be adequately covered in Oru Adaar Love's article. A redirect would be sufficient for now and probably semi-protect it. If, in the future, the subject gains recognition for her work as an actor, we can expand her page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article. a sensation now on internet and will remain so atleast for another few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.210.189 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — 183.82.210.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Seriously? This is exactly what BLP1E is intended to prevent. Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until the film is released in June, the mass following on social media and three shortfilms are the only assets in her favour. Doesnot deserve a page. A person from the same place whose video went viral few months back also deserved a page if this was the condition. This page can be expanded by June when the film is released Jibinmathews (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Subject has now vast coverage on mainstream media.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

امین اکبر Do you have sources to support that? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is nothing wrong in the article and notability can be measured by millions of views. 122.162.45.127 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)— 122.162.45.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please indicate the policy or guideline that states the minimum number of views required for notability. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nothing but passing news reports. Please come back when you have secondary coverage (which, among other things, demands that the source date from a time period well separated from the incidents being described) published by reliable sources. By the way, nominator should note that this is an actress, not an actor. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because there was no Actressess and filmmakers del-sort group? But trust me, I'm a feminist! :) MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I never look at the deletion sorting; I was responding to an actor with a single film. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, closing admin I just noticed the "redirect to movie" vote up above. I'm not sure how much we ought to be redirecting based on potential flash-in-the-pan names, but I'd definitely prefer redirecting to keeping. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is definitely a celebrity now. Just Google for Priya Prakash Varrier and you'll get proof for it from prominent media sources.--Joseph 13:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All prominent media sources go no more deeper about her than a 10 second wink. That's what BLP1E is there for. MT Train^Discuss 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and fully protect (short of outright deletion). This is a prime case of BLP1E. Prior to the trailer this actress was not notable or had enough coverage to justify inclusion into Wikipedia. The trailer became viral because of the wink. This makes the case a "Biography of a Living Person notable for One Event" (BLP1E). Arguing Instagram verified or Instagram followers is a WP:BIG argument. Comparisons of this actress to other actresses is a WP:WAX argument. In total the keep arguments are unsupported by policy, whereas the Delete/Merge/Redirect arguments are. I advocate for post closure full protection on whatever outcome comes from this discussion as the viral nature suggests that the page will be created again in short order to try and override the consensus derived here. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nothing special about this girl. Sadsadas (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not justified.--Masum-al-Hasan 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masum-al-hasan (talk • contribs)

Will you care to elaborate on what you mean by "Notability is not justified" please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should not be deleted. she has emerged as a big sensation in india with even ndtv and cnn ibn news 18 calling her nation's crush. her popularity may be temporary but such fads and sensations of this magnitude need to be in wikipedia.[14] On Feb 12, the people who searched for Katrina Kaif, 1 of India's top star is 10,000 and people who searched for Priya is 140,000.. How can you suggest to delete.. shall i remove the deletion tag ?? pls discuss.[15] Akshayacropolis (vote on talk page by an newcomer, whose arguments though are very sound, esp. that such events are milestones that need to be recorded. I have taken the liberty of pasting it here.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A crush is a short-lived infatuation. Says it all, really. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this deleted, it should be salted or made a protected redirect. Re-creation is otherwise inevitable. Based on [16] (I would not be able to do any other films until August) I doubt there will be an immediate need to revisit this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 19 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimal Rathore[edit]

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

The article does not have much notability, 2 sources are not reliable as Language of Love is more of a story than history and the Indian Portrait is an Art Gallery book, the only reliable content we can get tells that he was a commander in Siege of Chittorgarh during 1567-1568 and was killed by Akbar, and this information is already covered in the article Siege of Chittorgarh (1567--1568) so the article should be redirected to the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568). Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article meets the criteria's of redirection, it is fine to redirect it. But as much I think, article has lack of online references. But it is not based on stories. It is a real character of history. If we will collect history books, we can collect data. I don't know much history of the corresponding region.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books is just an Art Gallery, and the other book does not seem historically reliable, as the author himself is not an academic historian, rather an author. The person is real and mentioned, but his reliable mentions do not signify his notability. --Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siege of Chittorgarh (1567--1568). Could not find any reliable reference that the subject was a Rajput ruler other than a commander of the Rajput forces. Hagennos (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Please correct (herself -> himself). Yes, Jaimal was not a ruler. He was a Siege. I agree with redirection but what about page history?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected herself -> himself. Thank you for telling me. When a page is deleted its history is also deleted, or archived. I don't know that as I'm not an administrator but that does not matter. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Thanks for correction. What about a Siege? Are siege not notable for a wiki article?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siege is notable but the article already exists about Siege of Chittorgarh (1567-1568). So when the article exists already which has the information, than why can't we redirect Jaimal to it. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I want to understand it a bit more. Like there is an article Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, so we shouldn't keep 7 different pages for the 7 scientists (If we don't have sufficient online references.). I think!☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts are considered notable if they have undertaken a space mission. That has no relevance here Hagennos (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagennos: Because, we have sufficient online sources for them! If I could get sufficient online sources for Jaimal Rathore, it could be.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Astronauts who has been to space as is the case with High schools they are generally considered as notable by community consensus. So the number of references do not really matter. Notwithstanding if there are enough reliable independent references to meet WP:GNG then there is not question. Hagennos (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I want to say. Since, I am not a history student but whoever have read the history of Rajasthan at high school standards, also know about Jaimal Rathore and can be found in history books of Rajasthan. Even pocket books (of history) like Maharana Pratap have notified Jaimal. Some Hindi newspapers also notified Jaimal for many times (eg.) Surely, I agree that he is not that much notified as much Astronauts are.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he is notable, but as I've mentioned several times before, we don't know anything about him in reliable sources except his role the Siege of Chittorgarh, that is why redirection is necessary. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's probably a lot of work to be done here, but I do see some WP:RS for this person:

^[1]
^[2]

~~^[3] Finding those didn't take a lot of work. This seems notable to me.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding online sources, mentioned above, please note there's no requirement for sources to be online. It's certainly more convenient if they are, but paper sources are perfectly acceptable, if cited properly. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - the last two are mirrors of Wikipedia and not WP:RS at all. The first one is one of a hundred fake fronts for the "World Heritage" mirror - they provide minimal licensing through that "citational source" link which directs back to the deleted article here. The second is clearly labeled as a mirror. Kuru (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read them more carefully. You're certainly correct about the two wikipedia mirrors. Striking my whole comment. And @DGG:, just in case his comment was predicated on the (non) sources I found. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficient sources for notability have been presented. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources only mention his role in the Siege of Chittor, as said many times before, the notability here does not matter as much as the information around him. All the info here is already in the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567-1568) article. No reliable sources tell about his background or some other notable incident in which he participated. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the central gutenberg project source, that source is from a third party site which is not the official site of World Heritage Encyclopedia and it is not written by any historian, so it is not reliable and the guttenburg source says that Patta was Jaimal's son, which is wrong as Jaimal was from the Rathore clan and Patta from the Sisodia clan. And for that Commanders book in Google books, please mention the page in which Jaimal and Patta are mentioned. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Jaimal was not just the ruler of Merta, he was also "granted the Jagir of Badnor in 1554 by the Maharana of Mewar for services rendered." - The Indian Portrait (p. 82) [17], that included "Badnor with a thousand villages" - Unfamiliar Relations: Family and History in South Asia: Honoring the Family - Notes (p. 71) [18]. Also, an article in Swarajya magazine - Forgotten Legends: Women Of Chittor Who Were Warriors, Rulers, Administrators, And Poets [19] talks of Akbar being so impressed with Jaimal's defence that he had a statue made of Jaimal and his co-commander and they stood at the Dehli Gate of the Red Fort for hundreds of years. oh, and heres an article from Hindustan Times - Sit rep: Jaimal and Patta, valiant defenders of Chittorgarh [20], that adds some more about Jaimal including "Jaimal also had the experience of command at the siege of Merta in 1562-63 against Akbar’s general, Sharfuddin." Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Available references, some of which are mentioned in the previous !vote and a couple of which I added to the article, do discuss other aspects of Jaimal's role in ruling and defending Merta, as well as his role at the the Siege of Chittorgarh, satisfying both GNG and getting past any "known for one event" issue. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:01, 18 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoshan Liu[edit]

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

Questionable notability , and a promotional bio written in the classic PR style. A great deal of fluff has already been removed, but it keeps coming back. (with respect to WP:PROF, though there are many papers, none of them has more than 40 citations,and this is a field where very high citation counts are frequent. With respect to the GNG,not a single one of the English language references are reliable independentsources for notability. I cannot judge the Chinese ones. and in any case, NOT ADVOCACY is more fundamental to WP than than the notability guidelines DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy articles can always be re-written if the subject is notable. Also listing facts might not always be the same as advocacy. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 13:46, 12 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 22:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NASA DEVELOP National Program[edit]

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

Pure organizational, borderline promotional. No external sources, no indication of notability per GNG, directory-style content, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By virtue of being from NASA, I think it passes notability, but it definitely needs sources, and to change in style. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but "it's from NASA" is not an argument for notability. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but on a Google search, I found some non-trivial mentions. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Burden is on you to identify the specific sources you think bolster your case, so they can be considered here. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. Look at "news". I think those sources put it on the periphery of "notable". Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- doesn't seem to be a notable program.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:47, 16 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 - not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan caraveo[edit]

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

Not notable. M A A Z T A L K 08:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 12 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 SM Supermalls#Philippines. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SM Center Imus[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:N M A A Z T A L K 08:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SM Supermalls - Not enough coverage in reliable sources (heck, I couldn't find even news reports about this, at least at a moment). It's a plausible search term though so a redirect may be preferable to deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another run of the WP:MILL shopping mall. 24,000 m2 is hardly notable for size. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Supermalls - As of now it's only in its opening period, so it may become notable in the future. Hiddenstranger (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Supermalls - such notability at all. Oripaypaykim (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Supermalls § Philippines, where this is listed (WP:ATD-R). Has received some routine coverage, but per source searches does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 19 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sassi Punnu (1965 film)[edit]

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

Unable to find sources outside of YouTube and IMDB. Original editor has been blocked from editing for basically spamming Wiki with unsourced and/or copy vio articles. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V, possible hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete - No reference or notability at all Makhamakhi (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 13:56, 14 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. Other than the article's author and a WP:SPA, unanimous consensus to delete. Fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bastian Solutions[edit]

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

The sources for this are routine notices about opening of new location and acquisitions, , plus a few press releases. Not notable, presumably with promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be an establishing article, providing the business history and is most likely not fully defined. They appear to have developed several technologies and products that improve upon the material handling industry. The recent acquisition and growth would indicate this business is a leader in this space. Additional time would be needed to provide examples of notable application development within the material handling industry.Theegreatpumpkin (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)— Theegreatpumpkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

this is an argument for userification until you do find the necessary sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks, I found these 2 articles from WSJ for another story. Updating the article also. I want to say that this company is one of the giants in the automotive industry with a great history that played a vital part in the industry. Well, you guys know better I guess, I'll find more information.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/todays-top-supply-chain-and-logistics-news-from-wsj-1486468189

https://www.wsj.com/articles/toyota-industries-acquires-warehouse-robotics-developer-1486416718

DiamondDiana (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: DiamondDiana (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:NCOMPANY - I don't see anything substantial online about the company in WP:RS, just lots of press releases and puff mentions in industry magazines. It's worth a paragraph at its parent company's article Toyota Industries Corporation, but not the lengthy history given here, so proposing to delete rather than merge. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After adding from WSJ 9wall street journal) I added 4 (links below) more references from Inc Magazine and CrunchBase and Times. Please suggest thanks. I want to say that if you look at scholar articles we have many but I am not sure how to cite them. Anyway, this company is recognized worldwide in the automotive sector and mentioned almost in all independent relable sources. Waiting for more suggestions. Thanks DiamondDiana (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bastian-solutions

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201404/darren-dahl/the-best-industries-for-starting-a-business.html

Delete Agree with nom, references fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability and are not intellectually independent, references fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 19 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 to International student. ansh 666 06:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Study abroad[edit]

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

Translated from a Japanese article, this appears to be, essentially, an essay about "what a Japanese student should keep in mind when going off to study abroad". A rare example of non-USA parochiality on enWP and thus somewhat refreshing, but still completely unsuitable as an article. Previous attempts to redirect to Student exchange program have resulted in extensive edit warring, so some clear decision seems desirable. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the characteristics of a standalone one where the idea of studying abroad in general is explained. However, this is not a developed article with newer research, explaining the dimensions, or with extensive international perspective and these make the article weak. The current state of the article is fine per WP policies. I like it because it provides insights into the educational culture and culture is not trivial. Student exchange program (SEP) and Study abroad are entirely two different animals, it could be said that articles like SEP or Study abroad in the United States has the study abroad element but they don't mean that they are the same. I vote for keeping the article and adding refreshing content with the help of WP starred editors. If there is a nominating page for content development kindly link the same here for voting/ expressing support.45.249.236.226 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin, this ip and the one below are within 40 minutes of each other. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Since this does seem to be focused on one particular situation, it either needs to be generalized, or the specific scope explained. There are additional various inaccuracies. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Delete or Merge take your pick. This type of information is totally unready. This could be improved greatly. There is enough room for addition of information to generalize it and make it cover more bases. However, it would involve significant overlap with student exchange program. Artix Kreiger (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into international student. Draftification would be especially inappropriate because the article is covering similar ground to other such articles but doesn't have a correctly formed title yet (It should be studying abroad, not study abroad). In any case, deletion is not a sensible option because this is still a plausible search term and the content is respectable. Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject matter seems similar to that of Student exchange program, I'm sure that educationally useful parts could be merged. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful parts to international student, as Andrew Davidson suggested above. Cait.123 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draft or Merge: I do not understand why this has been relisted many times now and I hope this is the last time it will be relisted - already the opinions are forced. I feel the problem could be solved by changing the title of the article as "Studying abroad" as Andrew says. Otherwise, if a change is must, the article could be moved to a draft of regular content provider who is willing to adopt it. Wiki really needs an "adopt an article" program - I wish as many others the power brokers in Wiki will make this happen. Then again if we really need this not to be a separate article it could be merged with international students as Cait suggested than with Student exchange program - which already has a lot of problems. The routing person should arrange the international student article in a more readable manner and also route all the study abroad links to that page (If anyone knows a tool or a method in finding titles that are re-routed to an article, kindly do provide that info in my talk page - I can't find one).59.96.59.236 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I disagree with the OP that the article at present is a guide specifically for Japanese students studying outside Japan (reasons? which part? much of it would seem to apply also to foreign students in Japan, but...?), but there are clearly enough separate articles on essentially this same topic. Obviously, the title must be kept as at least a redirect to somewhere else. Not having thoroughly examined the other articles, I can't say where the best merge target would be, and I don't want to say for certain if anything in the current article is worth keeping, but it would be better to keep the history just in case. Translating from ja.wiki is tangential, really: ja.wiki is not like us, as they shun inline citations except in exceptional articles (they're kinda like en.wiki was for most of the 2000s); while much of their content may be verifiable, it generally isn't already verified and so I'm very reluctant to translate directly from there these days, but saying the article should be deleted because it's sourced to a wiki is kind of a non sequitur. I should also note that the page's listing at ARS was an in-joke about me, as I'm an ex-pat editor in Japan who studied abroad here back in 2009-2010 and have recently been commenting on the ARS talk page and elsewhere, but living in Japan doesn't really give me a different perspective on articles translated from ja.wiki. It doesn't really have anything to do with the AFD, except that a lot of the recent "rescue list" postings have not included content-specific rationales, but have rather just been jokes of varying levels of humour quality, meaning that the postings are essentially just telling an overwhelmingly anti-deletionist WikiProject "This article is at AFD. You know what to do..." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in my alma mater (Dublin City University), "international student" meant a non-Irish student (who generally had to pay fees of some kind and did not enter the university with a Leaving Certificate and College Application Order form) pursuing a full degree (undergrad or postgrad), and "student exchange programme" has a specific meaning that does not cover the majority of "study abroad" students, so I actually think this article has a better, most generic title that Student exchange programme. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 13 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. Merge to G.I. Generation can be discussed on the talk page if desired. ansh 666 06:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interbellum Generation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reputable source available to verify article information, all definitions of "Interbellum Generation" cite Wikipedia. Mentions of "Interbellum Generation" exist in literary archives, however are too obscure and/or irrelevant to be considered applicable.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of google books and google scholar results for "interbellum generation" and "interwar generation". It is also, apparently, a valid sub-field of study, for instance Harold Innis is called the dominant figure in the study of the interwar generation in Canada here[21]. There are also plenty of discussions of this generation as a group in sociology and economics literature. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating this article for discussion is the only edit by the nominator, User:Interbellian. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem would you possibly consider closing this AfD in light of the fact the nominating editor didn't do a BEFORE and basically lied in their rationale? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L3X1 I've watchlisted this discussion and will consider an early close if consensus appears to be established. However, while I agree that there appears to have been a lapse in BEFORE, that is not by itself grounds for a speedy close. Beyond which I think we need to AGF bearing in mind that incompetence is not the same thing as malice and we don't have evidence of motive or deliberate prevarication. Keeping a discussion open until we reach consensus rarely is a source of harm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It isn't all obvious wiki book spam (usage dates back to the 70s at least, and sources vary between themselves). There are however a number of different definitions - they all try to shoot to a generation in its prime between 1919-39 (but too young for WWI (the Lost generation), too old for frontline WWII grunt service (G.I generation)), however birth date ranges vary between definition (1895-1906, 1900-1910, 1901-1913). There is use of the term both in regards to American and European literature and arts. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to G.I. Generation (or Greatest Generation). This article already concedes the overlap, and the target article would benefit from expanded scope. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to G.I. Generation. The term is notable per the sources identified in the above discussion but there is a reasonable argument that the reader's understanding might be improved by situating this discussion within the additional context of the larger cohort. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:15, 15 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. I'll drop this one back to Draft:Carolyn Ryan for further improvement, the Delete comments are clearly more based in policy. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Ryan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, who has a potentially valid notability claim but doesn't have the type of reliable sourcing required to properly get over WP:GNG for it. Of the six footnotes here, two are her own employer's own internal staffing announcements, one is the alumni newsletter of her alma mater, one is Gawker, one is the Huffington Post and one is the self-published website of a resource organization for journalists -- which means that four of the six are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and one more is an inherently unreliable source that never belongs anywhere near the references section of any Wikipedia article at all. The only reference here that isn't a complete non-starter for sourcing a person as notable is the Huffington Post, but it doesn't count for enough all by itself as an article's only viable source. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this is not the correct sourcing to make it keepable in this form. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent, reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed all primary sources and found secondary sources for each fact listed. She is a notable senior editor and journalist who is been regular referenced in the news and has contributed to work that won a Pulitzer Prize. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify based on current sources. It's a weak WP:TOOSOON delete as I presume the position is strong, although not listed at The New York Times, but without sources we don't know much about her. The source newyorker is instructive of what's missing here - it's about Jill Abramson with a passing mention of Carolyn Ryan, if this is the claim for notability - Pulitzer Prize for the paper - which isn't even mentioned on Jill's, then WP:N in not INHERITED from that we'd need more sources. Widefox; talk 16:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the New York Times: "Ryan has also served as the newspaper’s Metro editor and helped run its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the fall of Eliot Spitzer." ^[4] I included that NYT citation for context, but since that doesn't contribute to notability, I have added the following secondary citations to the article which support her contributions to the Pulitzer Prize: According to Bizjournals, "She was the Times metro desk’s political editor in 2008 when the newspaper’s coverage of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution scandal won it a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for breaking news reporting."^[5] On the Washington Post, they said this (before it had actually won a Pulitzer Prize): "The switch will send Ryan back up to New York, where she’d gained accolades for leading the paper’s Metro staff in pursuing the story that took down former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer."^[6] According to Adweek: "Ryan was a key part of the paper’s Eliot Spitzer resignation coverage, among many other high profile stories." ^[7] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NYT isn't independent, so doesn't help for notability, those other three are all NEWS about her appointment...the Washington Post is based on NYT Dean Baquet’s memo, and an interview...so it's semi-independent/OK but weak for whole BLP, but still WP:PRIMARYNEWS, with the exception being the Eliot Spitzer part. Still looks a bit TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 15:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I saw that Carolyn Ryan is listed as #25 in a list of Albany's top 100 people on cityandstateny.com and her profile states: "The Times’ stable of reporters provide stellar Albany coverage, from the Pulitzer Prize winning stories about Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution scandal to a series about the gaps in the state’s safety net for the disabled. Behind it all is Carolyn Ryan, who has the enormously important role of deciding the direction of the Times’ coverage of New York politics." ^[8] There's also this profile about her on Huffington Post which states, "She started as deputy metro editor for government and politics, helping run major stories like the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal."^[9] She's also been interviewed on NBC News as the Washington Bureau Chief of The New York Times.^[10] Lonehexagon (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being named in listicles, or by appearing in other media as an interview guest speaking about somebody else: the listicle isn't substantive, and the interview isn't about Carolyn Ryan as a subject. Just to be clear, for Wikipedia's purposes notability is not defined as "holds an important role", but as "got substantive coverage in unaffiliated media about her holding of an important role" — so it can't be supported by mere listicles or brief blurbs or coverage in the pages of her own employer of its own internal staffing decisions or by interviews in which she's the speaker, but requires real, substantive coverage about her in media outlets that don't sign her paycheque. So the Huffington Post piece is still the only source you've shown that's actually getting us somewhere — but where it's getting us isn't the finish line all by itself, because we require more than just one source to be getting us somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the clarification. I found that she has been noted as a top 100 influential person in Albany, which is definitely notable if you're from Albany.^[11] I also saw that she did coverage for the 2016 election night. CNN Money did an article about the journalists who covered it, which means the article was about her and the other journalists. It's not news, it's coverage of her coverage.^[12] Lonehexagon (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the notability guidelines in WP:CREATIVE and saw this about notable creative professionals like journalists: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Ryan is widely cited by peers as she's regularly asked to give commentary on what's happening in the NYT newsroom as well as her opinion on current events. The article also says, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Ryan played a major role in co-creating a work that won a Pulitzer Prize. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability claim that any article can ever make that hands it an automatic exemption from having to be properly sourced — even a president of the United States would not get to have a Wikipedia article if he somehow managed to hold the role without getting any media coverage about his presidency. It's the depth and breadth and quality of reliable sourcing that can be shown to support the notability claim, not the mere assertion of a notability claim in and of itself, that determines whether the notability claim translates into getting a Wikipedia article or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are now more than two good notability secondary sources, as well as all the quotes and other coverage in the news which can be combined via WP:BIO to help add notability. For example The Huffington Post interview, being noted as a top influential person in Albany, and being covered by CNN Money for her election night coverage. She has been written about and quoted in so many places in so many sources I think it's reasonable someone might want to look up her name and see who she is after watching her get interviewed on television or asked about her opinion about the NYT newsroom or current news. If you search for her name on Google News, she gets hundreds of results because she is so widely spoken about and quoted.^[13] Lonehexagon (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for this whole "top x" argument, please see WP:ARBITRARY, an argument to avoid in AfDs. Widefox; talk 01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It was meant to support the criteria, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." My other points still stand. She was also covered by City & State which is a complete profile of her in a notable secondary source.^[14] Lonehexagon (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Commanders". Retrieved 2018-02-10 – via Google Books.
^ Central, Project Gutenberg. "Jaimal and Patta | Project Gutenberg Central - eBooks | Read eBooks online". central.gutenberg.org. Retrieved 2018-02-10.
^ "Jaimal and Patta". Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. Retrieved 2018-02-10.
^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/business/media/new-york-times-editor-recruitment-carolyn-ryan.html
^ https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2013/05/02/ny-times-names-ryan-its-top-political.html
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/08/nyt-politics-editor-carolyn-ryan-weve-dominated-all-the-big-stories/?utm_term=.21d6de42c93e
^ http://www.adweek.com/digital/new-york-times-taps-carolyn-ryan-to-be-metro-editor/
^ http://archives.cityandstateny.com/albany-power-100-list-8/
^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/01/carolyn-ryan-new-york-times-washington-bureau_n_4368790.html
^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/17/nyts_carolyn_ryan_dems_feeling_like_obama_doesnt_care_about_their_races.html
^ http://archives.cityandstateny.com/albany-power-100-list-8/
^ http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/05/media/election-night-news-coverage-oral-history/index.html
^ https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS724US724&biw=1375&bih=707&tbm=nws&ei=w517Wo-iM6zejwSilZTYDA&q=%22Carolyn+Ryan%22+reporter&oq=%22Carolyn+Ryan%22+reporter&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3568.4175.0.4247.8.7.0.0.0.0.140.562.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.0.0....0.wWpOBFea8rg
^ http://archives.cityandstateny.com/carolyn-ryan/

Summary (struck [a]) I vote to keep this article. I want to personally thank Bearcat and Widefox for the time and help they've offered. I truly appreciate it, and I believe I have learned a lot about what is acceptable and not acceptable as far as sources and notability. I wanted to summarize why I believe this article should be kept, so no one has to read through all that's been said by me. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Ryan is a journalist and senior editor at The New York Times who contributed to the Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of Eliot Spitzer[1][2] and has been noted as an influential reporter.[3]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/08/nyt-politics-editor-carolyn-ryan-weve-dominated-all-the-big-stories/?utm_term=.fd0a87580907 - In-depth article on Washington Post about Ryan that supports her current position and discusses her place at the Times and in the Newsroom. It also supports the fact that she was a major contributor to the Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of Eliot Spitzer.

[2] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/01/carolyn-ryan-new-york-times-washington-bureau_n_4368790.html - An in-depth article about Ryan in the Huffington Post that also discusses her position and her past work, including the coverage of Eliot Spitzer

[3] http://archives.cityandstateny.com/carolyn-ryan/ - City & State conducted a profile on her as an influential reporter

[a] This is a 2nd !vote - struck by Widefox Widefox; talk 21:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't understand. I have changed it to just say "Summary" Lonehexagon (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are not wide and independent enough to support notability per nom.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in RS, works in a notable media org and has an important role in said org.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:46, 21 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 Bükkszék. Content can be merged from page histories. ansh 666 06:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvus Water[edit]

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

For something that purportedly cures diabetes, dyspepsia, gastric ulcer, gastritis, gastric hyperacidity, colitis, acute subglotticus laryngitis, acute inflammation of the lower respiratory tract, chronic inflammation of the lower respiratory tract, asthma, bronchiestasia, chronic bronchitis and COPD .... in addition to loco-motor disorders and gynecological diseases (presumably also effective at treating nail biting, an affinity for K-Pop, and not using your turn signal) there sure ain't much written about it. There's passing mention in a barely readable paper on tourism, passing mention is a somewhat more legible business thesis, there's whatever this and this are. Then there's some people apparently trading home remedies online. Apparently an overall non-notable local piece of FRINGE tourism. GMG ^talk 18:55, 28 January 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) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took took the liberty of swapping the primary AFD topic from (Society Topics) to (places). And I won't be aroudn to answer for my deeds as I need to get my affinity for K-Pop cured. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~merge~~ redirect. There are a few mentions I've found on google, but I'm sure there's an alternative medicine article this could be merged into that would be sufficient, I just don't know which one. Natureium (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be interested to see what you found. I didn't really see enough to write a stand-alone section, much less a stand alone article. I'd be fine with a redirect if I had any idea what a valid target might be. GMG ^talk 11:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bükkszék already says that it's about the only notable thing in that place, so a couple sentences in that article could suffice with Salvus water redirecting there, or the article could just be deleted without redirect, because if you search for it, that's the article in the results anyway. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Bükkszék seems agreeable. I'm not sure it's really a merge in any meaningful sense. GMG ^talk 00:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Natureium (talk) last remark above.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A prior article under this title, and which at the time had substantially the same content, was moved into userspace by me per the request of User:Dthomsen8 (see User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 25#Talk page:Salvus Water). See User:Dthomsen8/Salvus Water. If this article is kept, I believe that a history merge would be appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 12 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep, multiple reliable sources demonstrated. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EcoQuest[edit]

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

totally unsourced WP:OR promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG handily (non-trivial coverage in multiple books and magazines). Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HaeB, the sources exist but aren't mentioned in the article which means that this article needs to either get properly sourced (as it could be original research in this state) or entirely re-written, but the game is notable. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improper WP:BEFORE. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 17 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 List of sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Fields[edit]

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

County sheriff and county freeholder, neither of which gives an automatic pass of WP:POLITICIAN. The article is based on a single source and I don't see anything in the article that suggests his time in either position he held was particularly notable. Rusf10 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contingent on outcome of discussion at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as to whether or not subsection Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs should be split to stand-alone article. this nomination-decision should postponed/re-listed. Djflem (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is a Cyclopedia and gives him substantial coverage. This establishes his notability. Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To pass GNG, you need to have multiple sources, not just one.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. An entry in an established encyclopedia is all that's needed to establish notability. If a subject is already covered in an enecyclopedia we assume it is notable and that sources exist to support notability. And of coirse, it's not the only source covering this individual. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am afraid you are mistaken. The full name of the book in question is "Biographical and portrait cyclopedia of the Third congressional district of New Jersey," that's a very specific title for a book. It's not like we're talking about Encyclopedia Britannica here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by nom this fails WP:POLOUTCOMES as a municipal officeholder. Therefore, subject needs to pass GNG. Currently only one source is in article, and a BEFORE fails to find others in RS, which indicates a GNG failure. Chetsford (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also oppose a merge or redirect. The section of Monmouth County, New Jersey / Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey to which the merge/redirect is proposed is an entirely unsourced section. And a section composed of an exhaustive list of sheriffs is out of format for most of our county articles. Ergo, it's only a matter of time before the target of the redirect itself gets deleted. Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - there's some kind of backstory here that's too much for me to get into right now with a level of thoroughness that would be fair to all sides. I withdraw participation in this AfD. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and there's nothing better. Biographical and portrait cyclopedia of the Third congressional district of New Jersey is not exactly a "Dictionary of National Biography", and I suspect is a catalogue of low-level politicians. This does not help meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County freeholder is not an office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the sourcing here is not adequate to demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for an otherwise non-notable office. One source is not an automatic GNG pass just because it has the word "cyclopedia" in its own name — an entry in the Encyclopedia Brittanica or a national dictionary of biographies would certainly count for something, but a local "encyclopedia" is not automatically enough. The entry would have to be in an encyclopedia that is itself notable and widely recognized enough for us to have an article about the encyclopedia, not just in any random book that calls itself an encyclopedia. Every single person who ever held any office at the municipal or county levels anywhere could always be sourced to one blurb in a purely local directory of local officeholders — so if that were enough for a keep in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about everybody who ever served at that level of office. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey and / or List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors The cyclopedia reference is a decent one, but there is insufficient evidence of standalone notability at this point. WP:BEFORE and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.
As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is a place in the format of both Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors for information to be inserted.Djflem (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10:, @Chetsford:, @K.e.coffman:, @Bearcat: - Per above, "...if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Pinging all those who haven't yet responded regarding any objections to a merge and / or redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey and / or List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors and looking for some elaborations. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated my rationale with opposition to merge/redirect. Chetsford (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:I oppose the merge as per Chetsford. It is highly unusual that we have anything more than just a list of names for county sheriffs. And to be fair, if you're going to call people out and demand they give explanations, why not call out the one Merge vote above that also didn't offer an explanation?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford did not oppose merge; he withdrew his participation in this AfD.Djflem (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, sorry to call bullshit, but the decision to merge the content from a standalone article to Monmouth County, New Jersey was based on consensus reached at AE on an action in which you were the initiating party. Did you suddenly forget about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? At least Chetsford can rightfully claim to be unaware of this discussion when explaining why WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE should be ignored by claiming that anything deemed "highly unusual" (a.k.a. WP:IDONTLIKEIT) can't be converted into a redirect. What's your excuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally misrepresenting the AE Request. The consensus was a user with a topic ban on creating articles cannot change a redirect to an article and it was agreed that the article would be turned back into a redirect at least for now. There was no consensus on whether the article should be created or what information from it should be included in the Monmouth County article. It was briefly discussed, but it is complete "bullshit" (to use your favorite word) to say that there was a consensus on what content should be merged. AE is not a place to determine article content and you should know that. I believe that nothing more than a simple list should exist and there is no consensus that says otherwise. And you still didn't tell me why people who agree with you shouldn't also have to offer explanations as to why they support a merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Comment. There is a place in the format of both Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors for information to be edited and be inserted. Reviewing aboved-mentioned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement one sees in "Statement by Francis" the most reasonable way to proceed regarding the material, in normal editing fashion.Djflem (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged (still "delete") -- I'm not convinced that the list itself is notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 13 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 to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Great Lakes Premier League season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This league was local to a few states in the Midwest but was certainly covered by local media outlets. I know that this particular season was mentioned several times in the Grand Rapids Press because Grand Rapids FC receives good local media coverage. Wisconsin Soccer Central also followed this league. I don't know how much coverage a league needs but this league was definitely mentioned by local media. Rungladwin (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments A few clubs that couldn't enter a sanctioned league starting up their own league? This sounds like a Sunday league format and these league generally fail notability. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the question is whether Premier League of America is notable, which it presumably is. It would then follow that its seasons are notable. Most of its clubs have articles. Most of the seasons have references. Oculi (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:INHERIT negates that argument. Just because the league itself may have notability does not mean individual seasons do. The articles referenced do not draw from reliable sources that discuss the entirety of the league seasons as a whole. Jay eyem (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results Quidster4040 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are three sources, none of which demonstrate notability for the season itself. Google search numbers are insufficient for arguing whether or not an article should be kept. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The league started out small but has through one renaming and now a merger become a part of the much larger and reputable United Premier Soccer League, forming its entire new Midwest Conference. These articles therefore form part of the history of that league. ByteofKnowledge (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesn't help demonstrate notability of this season. Plus it remains to be seen whether or not the season for that league will be considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though this discussion has more participation than its sibling AFD discussions, I am unconvinced that consensus can be reasonably found here. Please make sure to use good arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based only on the deleter's contention the league failing WP:GNG and being insufficient sources, a quick search of the 2015 season shows this got more media coverage than I ever would have thought. Many non-notable amateur football competitions have seasonal articles across languages. League has survived multiple seasons and has added teams. I might vote delete if a more restrictive criteria for league seasons exists somewhere on Wikipedia, however original requester did not note anything other than WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur league season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With 2016 Premier League of America season and 2017 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk 16:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually think merging would be an excellent alternative, but rather merge the information into Premier League of America, such as keeping the tables and the playoffs. Since there are only three total seasons for a now defunct league, I don't think there would be WP:LENGTH issues to worry about. Jay eyem (talk) 16:37, 13 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 to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Premier League of America season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results Quidster4040 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment much like the other articles I have nominated, you have failed to demonstrate that reliable sources exist for this season as a whole such that it meets WP:GNG. Referring to google searches is NOT sufficient reason to keep an article, and this article currently has ZERO citations. Jay eyem (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The league started out small but has through one renaming and now a merger become a part of the much larger and reputable United Premier Soccer League, forming its entire new Midwest Conference. These articles therefore form part of the history of that league. ByteofKnowledge (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesn't help demonstrate notability of this season. Plus it remains to be seen whether or not the season for that league will be considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my argument for the 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season. Furthermore to the nominator I believe the season articles should have been grouped together in one AfD. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it took me about two minutes to find three reference-able third party sources for the league, so I added them even if this gets deleted. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur league season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of sources, we have at least a number of articles: [31] [32] [33] [34] Local newspapers had photojournalists at games [35] and game scores were picked up on local tv stations (albeit a brief article.) [36]. I believe that's significant coverage which talks about the season in detail (though not all games have stories, unfortunately) in reliable sources independent of the subject, creating a presumption of notability that's on the nominator to rebut. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources one and two as listed right now discuss the entrance of a new team and an exit of an old team. The Fifty Five One source is an example of routine coverage, which is insufficient reason to maintain the article. There needs to be a source given that demonstrates that notability is established with significant coverage for the season itself, not just when teams entered or exited the league. This has not been done so to this point in the resources provided. Jay eyem (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's fine. I added those sources with about two minutes' worth of work. A sports league season article is an event. Even assuming you're right the articles are [[[WP:ROUTINE]], multiple routine sources about an event actually show an event's notability. It shouldn't be hard to source this article. SportingFlyer (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That combines both WP:ROUTINE and WP:SYNTH, one argument of which is insufficient, the other of which is an improper way to maintain an article. There needs to be sources with significant coverage about the season itself. If you want to source the article yourself then do so please. Jay eyem (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season and 2017 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually think merging would be an excellent alternative, but rather merge the information into Premier League of America, such as keeping the tables and the playoffs. Since there are only three total seasons for a now defunct league, I don't think there would be WP:LENGTH issues to worry about. Jay eyem (talk) 16:37, 13 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 to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Premier League of America season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are five sources for the article, all of which have to do with new teams entering the league. That doesn't demonstrate the notability of the season. "Significant third party coverage" is not represented in the article and google search results are insufficient reason to keep an article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is fine and is a useful source as it is. The fact that the article does not cite outside sources does not mean that those sources do not exist. The nature of an article on a sports season is fact-driven, and the best source for those facts is primary sources Bashum104 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources discussing the season in depth. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments for 2015 season and again, this should be grouped with the other two seasons. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur leauge season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The season is a regular event with notable sources held by a notable entity, which qualifies it as notable per WP:GNG. I will be in touch with the closing admin on the other AfD as that did not appear to be done correctly. SportingFlyer (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment under WP:INHERIT the fact that the league itself may be notable does not mean that the season itself is notable if it is not supported as such by the sources. All of the sources just talk about the teams joining the league, that's not enough to establish significant coverage. And I did understand your grouping comment, this is really my first time proposing an article for deletion and I'm not very skilled at it, so I'll try to make these proposals properly in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - did you understand my "grouped with the other two seasons" part? These three articles should all be consolidated under one AfD, in my opinion. I'll have to make the same arguments again twice. SportingFlyer (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season and 2016 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually think merging would be an excellent alternative, but rather merge the information into Premier League of America, such as keeping the tables and the playoffs. Since there are only three total seasons for a now defunct league, I don't think there would be WP:LENGTH issues to worry about. Jay eyem (talk) 16:37, 13 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. Delete arguments are compelling, and Donald Trung's opinion does not address them. Sandstein 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List is entirely WP:OR and listcruft. Last deletion result pretty much only had one vote for or against. But this seems like WP:TNT is merited. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such ideas are covered in the works detailed in the previous AfD and other works such as Ten Billion Tomorrows: How Science Fiction Technology Became Reality and Shapes the Future. Andrew D. (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be notable in theory, but none of the article is currently encyclopedic. The deletion discussion is for the current page, not for a hypothetical, future, referenced page. That can be done via a draft. That said, such pages are usually only made when an "In fiction" section in the parent article is insufficient._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you don't like how a notable article is written now then you can always improve it, Wikipedia is a collaborative project where people's talents compliment each other's and if the author wasn't good with the encyclopedic WP:PROSE then most people can fix it for them. Deletion should only be reserved for subjects that (currently) have no place on Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands Mainly since it violates core policies such as WP:OR, WP:V etc and being tagged for 10 years as needing more sources suggests there are not many secondary sources to verify each example. Also it is just a list of not very notable examples, the games, films & books maybe notable but the weapons are not. If this can be referenced properly then great, otherwise delete. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pure fancruft; sci-fi and video games are chock-full of futuristic weaponry, none of it of any real interest save to onsessives.TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT and failing WP:V/WP:OR Ajf773 (talk) 17:37, 14 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 Dil Hai Hindustani. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haitham Mohammed Rafi[edit]

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

I don't see how someone winning these music-reality shows, spawning every alternate day at alternate TV channels, are encyclopedically notable.Trivial limited one-time news-coverage.BLP1E.Much of the coverage at the Times-of-Oman do look to be paid-promo.And, the current state of the article is semi-G11able stuff. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to Dil Hai Hindustani per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTYET. The article read like a piece of promo/advertising and was created by a single purpose account. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:02, 13 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhary Rabiya Shafiq[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Chowdhary Rabiya Shafiq represents a real person. She is known by the ‘Fitst Female Journalist’ of district Rajouri in ‘Jammu & Kashmir’ state of India. She is a social activist and works with an NGO namely AAJAAR as District Volunteer Head. She hails from one of the backward districts of the state but she is working for the upliftment of the people living in those backward rural areas. She played a lead role in a short film titled ‘The Hair Maze’.106.192.51.251 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Shoaib — 106.192.51.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please demonstrate how this establishes notability. (Hint... read the guideline.) reddogsix (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Shoaib tantray111 (I'll assume that the first comment was from you given your habit of tagging pages with Shoaib), could you explain your connection with Chowdhary Rabiya Shafiq? She started an autobiography at Draft:Chowdhary Rabiya Shafiq and you seem to have returned after a 10 month long absence to create the article for her. What's the connection - are you a cat's paw, a meatpuppet, or were you paid to get her bio on the wiki which she was unable to do herself? Cabayi (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi I wasn’t expecting this from Wikipedia community. End of discussion. Shoaib tantray111 (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoaib tantray111 - Cabayi politely asks a valid question, yet, you fail to answer with a yes or no. Makes me ask the same question. Is there any connection between you and the subject of the article? reddogsix (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and definitely a case of COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reddogsix NO Shoaib tantray111 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person. Fails WP:NBIO --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I do not see any particular claim to notability. A journalist is notable due to the impact of their reporting which will generally garner some awards. That seems to be missing here. The "first female journalist from xxx" is a vague title and unless there is adequate coverage, I don't see it as a reason for notability. For acting credits in a movie, it needs to be shown that the movie itself was notable. Perhaps the person might become notable someday in the future, but as of now today I don't think it fulfils the notability criteria.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:41, 18 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudanovsky Foundation[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. The sources provided are contain passing mentions of the organization at best and I could find none better. Fails notability criteria for organizations and Wikipedia's general notability guidelines Jbh ^Talk 05:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. This SPA-authored article was created to promote a specific art show. I fell for it and did a lot of work on this article. It needs to go. Rhadow (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhadow. It looks more like a artist project than a "real" foundation. And it hasn't reached the point of notability. Maybe TOO SOON. Maybe never. --Theredproject (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From my research, appears to be either a loose artistic idea or a scam. Sources are minimal.104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:03, 15 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. A move to Dragon's Breath (ammunition) or any other title can be discussed via WP:RM on the article talkpage (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's breath[edit]

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

Was going to move this (it looks to typically be capitalized, and there are other "Dragon's Breath" titles such that a parenthetical would be warranted), but it doesn't actually look like it passes WP:GNG. Sources are generally to personal websites, commercial sites, and primary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly rename if there is a more technical name (which is not readily apparent to me). A number of states refer to these in their laws (e.g. [37] [38] [39]). Some book references - e.g. this Wiley book [40] (and quite a few hits in google-book on "dragon's breath" shotgun).Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the legislature mentions noted above might do it re notability. But I'd suggest renaming - "Dragon's breath (ammunition)"? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Should be renamed "Dragon's Breath (ammunition)" with capitalized "Breath"--RAF910 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not seeing any argument about WP:GNG here. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of the above provides significant coverage as defined at WP:N, and I've never seen anyone argue that because some city or state bans a particular item, that contributes to that item's notability. Anyone have any in-depth coverage? So far the best is a single paragraph of description in the Wiley book. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see coveragenin dozens of books - generally up tk a few paragraphs (pften 1) describing what this ammo is.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 13 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current ACC football announcers[edit]

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

Subject is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article or list Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any sources to satisfy WP:LISTN. How did this fly under the radar for a decade? Lizard (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lizard the Wizard: Not a big surprise when "current" groupings like Template:NFL strength and conditioning coach navbox lurk.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Moreover, these "current" lists seems against the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. An encyclopedic page would be enduring with information growing or a historical record. "Current lists" just churns based on recent events.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Some current lists can be notable, like Current members of the United States House of Representatives. This just is not one of them.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily (and more appropriately covered) under each team's media/radio section within each individual article. Nate • (chatter) 11:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to appropriate team articles. Alternatively, an enthusiastic editor could create an overall article about ACC broadcasting including history... if, of course, sources could be drummed up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no objection to deleting either...--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, group of broadcasters for a conference isn't a notable list. Also there is an article for Mountain West, Big 12, and Conference USA announcers as well. Don't know if it would be better for all the be grouped into one afD here, or individual pages. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Links this user provided are to conference championship games, not to current announcers. They are completely different types of lists and should not be subject to this discussion. That would be List of ACC Football Championship Game broadcasters–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is correct, only realizing it now. I wasn't going to nominated them in this afD as a few votes had already been made before mine. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding sources to satisfy either WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would also support deletion of the three additional lists referenced by WikiVirusC. Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom; Fails all relevant notability requirements. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Broadcasters aren't always notable, lists of broadcasters may be, but certainly not a current list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTESAL. List of current ACC basketball announcers has been nominated for deletion. Sam Sailor 16:41, 18 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celina Milner[edit]

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

Milner is a defeated candidate for the state legislature. This in no way makes her notable. None of her other accomplishments are even near notability. Candidates will always get a splattering of press coverage, but nothing here rises to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Unsuccessful political candidate with no notability outside of running for Senate. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note she ran for the state senate, not the US senate. This is a position in the legislature of her state. People at this level are almost never notable. Candidates for US senate have a higher chance of passing the notability hurdle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A review of the available sources shows that subject neither meets GNG/BASIC nor the additional criterion for politicians. Sam Sailor 15:24, 18 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Moriarty[edit]

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

This director, producer, etc. of two documentaries doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near the level of sources needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV - Fails GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite sourcing attempts. Does not meet neither GNG/BASIC nor WP:FILMMAKER. I suppose an {{R to related topic}} to Prison Ball would be reasonable. Sam Sailor 15:17, 18 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Davis (producer)[edit]

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

Deleted at MfD, restored per talk page request as the discussion had no participation. Creator claims there is a claim to notability as a show he produced won an Emmy (he himself did not win) and there are some sources about him. Drafts aren't usually deleted for notability reasons when there is a reasonable claim to notability, but this has been rejected a number of times at AfC. Therefore I am taking the unusual step of moving it to mainspace to have an AfD to settle the matter.

My analysis of the sources in the article is as follows:

Time - decent source
Horizont - ROUTINE business announcement
DWDL - business announcement in trade mag
Unitel - production company "news"?
Romyverleihung 2012 - Can't cite WP, so no
Emmy - decent but not inherent notability especially as he didn't win the Emmy, the show did
DWDL - interview, trade mag
DWDL - not primarily about Davis, trade mag
NRW - paywall, can't see depth of coverage
Emmy Ceremony - participating in the Emmy ceremony is not evidence of notability
NRW - trivial mention by name only
Romyverleihung 2012 - Again, can't cite WP
As 6
As 6
Presseportal - Davis not mentioned
Presseportal - Davis not mentioned

The remainder of the refs are from the production company website and don't demonstrate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles for Deletion doesn't prevent future recreations/submissions of an article as notability can always be established in the future. I don't see why interviews don't help establish notability as we use them in BLP articles of famous people all the time. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either he's notable presently, in which case the AfC reviewers are wrong and the article should be in main, or he isn't, in which case it should be deleted. The fact that he might become notable later isn't relevant, or else we would never delete anything just in case it became notable in future. WP:CRYSTAL is a reason to delete, not a reason to keep.

It's been resubmitted and declined numerous times at AfC, then deleted at MfD. I restored it at the request of the nom on behalf of the creator. MfD historically has way less visibility than AfD (as evidenced by the lack of participation in the original discussion), so AfD is a much better place to get the community's thoughts on Davis' notability.

There's a difference between a source being used in an article to cite something, and a source being used to judge notability. Interviews typically don't help establish notability because they're not intellectually independent of the subject, which is required for a source to be considered reliable by our standards. It can vary of course, depending on who published the interview, but usually interviews in smaller publications are not considered to contribute much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable producer. The above source analysis correctly indicates the lack of notability. Perhaps the article on the German Wikipedia should also be deleted, but that requires its own discussion there in German. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Davis is a very successful producer in Germany and has won several prices. For the TV movie A Day for a Miracle he won with his company Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH an International Emmy Award in New York. This is very very rare for a German producer. For A Day for a Miracle he won, as well, the preeminent Austrian Romy television award in the category Best TV Producer. Beside that Sam Davis was nominated two years in a row for the Producer´s Award at the Filmfestival Hamburg for The Cold Truth (2014) and Trust me (2015). All this is sufficient grounds for an English language Wikipedia article about Sam Davis. KatharinaRB (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep very notable producer in Germany who works international KatharinaRB (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the argument, that the movie and not the producer Sam Davis or the company Rowboat won the International Emmy for A Day for a Miracle isn’t quite accurate. Of course it’s the movie that is primary associated with the award – which is in fact a producer´s award –, but without the producer (and the production company) there would have been no movie. You can compare it to the launch of Falcon Heavy of Space X on 7 February. The test is of course very notable, but without Elon Musk, his company Space X and – not to forget – his vision, there would have been no test. Like Musk and Space X, Sam Davis and his Rowboat company are intertwined. So that A Day for a Miracle did win the award is mostly due to Sam Davis and his vision executed through a company, that has produced other notable productions. Most recently, the company is launching in 2018 the second season of the highly rated and discussed prime time series Professor T. The series is a notable adaptation of the similarly titled series in Belgium, which was also produced in France under the same name, again... notable. For these collective reasons, may I kindly recommend keeping the English article of Sam Davis.

*Strong keep --KatharinaRB (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: KatharinaRB (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If Davis had won an Emmy for producing, then it would be a different story. But something he worked on won an Emmy. That contributes to the notability of the show or the film, not the producer. Your analogy fails because Elon Musk, Space X, and the Falcon flight are all independently notable by Wikipedia standards - there is plenty of coverage in reliable worldwide sources about all three. On the other hand, Davis is so lacking in notability that the best source is a single Time article from 2002, with nothing even remotely approaching that level of substance having been produced in the sixteen years since.

Respectfully, you are a paid editor employed by Rowboat. You have a goal here, and it isn't to produce encyclopedic content - it's to promote Davis, his company, and its works. I applaud you for working openly, but your arguments are made from that point of view, not from Wikipedia policy. If Davis were notable, there would be more reliable sources about him, period. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more notable producers in Germany, who gets featured as such by ZDF (major German TV station)[41] or Die Welt[42]. Kress calls him "einer der wichtigsten Aufbauhelfer für das moderne TV-Movie in Deutschland"[43]. The Romy prize can be sourced to a reliable Austrian source[44], so he has verifiably won a major award. Fram (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment (neutral). There was no need to move this to mainspace to run it through AfD. Drafts can be brought to WP:MFD and can be deleted directly from there if they are found to be non-notable. As a recent example, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Josef Schmalz. But, that's just for future reference; now that it's here, we should let this discussion continue to its normal conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified by Fram, passes WP:BASIC and confirmed as winning a notable award Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite poor sourcing in this and the German article [[45]], I was able to find this [[46]] in the Hollywood Reporter, which calls him "...one of Germany's best-known television producers". Based on his filmography, multiple productions with their own articles, my vote is a keep, and I also recommend a refimprove hatnote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:31, 20 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Reilly[edit]

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

having a youtube video doesn't pass WP:NMUSICIAN, I cannot find reliable source coverage of this person. Rusf10 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we should treat YouTube any different than an "offline medium" as if one would exclude the birth records 3 (three) independent sources are used and many famous stars started off as YouTubers. Plenty of YouTubers also have their own article, but if the notability only concerns one video then the article could be moved to one about her video. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon second glance I see that this is about two YouTube video's in two years which seems that her notability extends a single event so Keep. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you have misread her two albums as youtube videos, she actually has 194 youtube videos Atlantic306 (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won a significant music competition as confirmed by Broadway World here which is a reliable source so passes criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) and has released two studio albums. Regarding YouTube she has 194 videos on her channel, 180,000 subscribers and 6.7 million views. Atlantic306 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable, although borderline. This source link needs to be updated, as it's showing 2017 winners (she won in 2016). This does look a bit like a BLP:1E to me, as the article's claim to notability rests on the winning of the SongDoor competition (SongDoor doesn't have an article itself, add a redlink?). As Donald Trung said, she has a few big videos. Her most popular video has a little over a half million views, and is only really written about in the broadwayworld article. So, this is a weak keep. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO, "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" plus a significant following as a YouTuber. I added her YouTube channel information in the infobox. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per her impressive YouTube statistics, but agreed there's not much written about her news-wise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 18 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. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GWU Recess[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources– references are either brief mentions of the organization or from GWU student publications. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also previous WP:Articles for deletion/ReceSs. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find passing mentions of the subject in recent publications. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are mentions but no significant coverage in reliable sources since the last AFD closed as ‘delete’ 10+ years ago. -- Wikipedical (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. If it were a multi-campus organization with chapters nationally, and secondary sourced, it'd be fine, but this is evidently a monthly improv group at a single university. Not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:31, 12 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.

[book_Comm-1] "Commanders". Retrieved 2018-02-10 – via Google Books.

[cent_Jaim-2] Central, Project Gutenberg. "Jaimal and Patta | Project Gutenberg Central - eBooks | Read eBooks online". central.gutenberg.org. Retrieved 2018-02-10.

[enac_Jaim-3] "Jaimal and Patta". Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. Retrieved 2018-02-10.

[4] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/business/media/new-york-times-editor-recruitment-carolyn-ryan.html

[5] ttps://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2013/05/02/ny-times-names-ryan-its-top-political.html

[6] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/08/nyt-politics-editor-carolyn-ryan-weve-dominated-all-the-big-stories/?utm_term=.21d6de42c93e

[7] ttp://www.adweek.com/digital/new-york-times-taps-carolyn-ryan-to-be-metro-editor/

[8] ttp://archives.cityandstateny.com/albany-power-100-list-8/

[9] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/01/carolyn-ryan-new-york-times-washington-bureau_n_4368790.html

[10] ttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/17/nyts_carolyn_ryan_dems_feeling_like_obama_doesnt_care_about_their_races.html

[11] ttp://archives.cityandstateny.com/albany-power-100-list-8/

[12] ttp://money.cnn.com/2017/01/05/media/election-night-news-coverage-oral-history/index.html

[13] ttps://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS724US724&biw=1375&bih=707&tbm=nws&ei=w517Wo-iM6zejwSilZTYDA&q=%22Carolyn+Ryan%22+reporter&oq=%22Carolyn+Ryan%22+reporter&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3568.4175.0.4247.8.7.0.0.0.0.140.562.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.0.0....0.wWpOBFea8rg

[14] ttp://archives.cityandstateny.com/carolyn-ryan/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]