Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 February	15 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Zoldan[edit]

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

not notable, andpromotional Over-personal article, presumably with some kind of COI. The references are almost entirely to items he has written himself, except for an item in his university's alumni publication, not usually considered a sufficient reliable source for notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic pass of any Wikipedia notability criterion in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but the sourcing here doesn't clear GNG. The only source here that's about him in any non-trivial way is the alumni newsletter of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-assisting source, and everything else is a directory listing, a piece of his own writing or a source in which he's trivially namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about some other topic. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by getting quoted in coverage of other things or by being the author of his own sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promo of a non-notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delte a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arleo Dordar[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Run-of-the-mill actor. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe over time, but right now he is non-notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:25, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wooldridge[edit]

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

Unnotable attorney. No signs of notability, or even a claim of notability. Single article about opposition to death penalty in the daily kos does not establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been in the news quite a bit, though I wouldn't go citing the Daily Mail or anything. My main reservation is he seems to be notable for defending people charged with terrorism offences and it might simply be we can't write an article about him without falling foul of WP:BLPCRIME. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having high profile clients is not generally enough to make a lawyer notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Bhattarai[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources SeytX (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 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 speedy keep. Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheer Sharma[edit]

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

Not notable need extra sources i think and also Lack of reliable sources SeytX (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 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 speedy keep. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Chiri Sherpa[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: meets threshold of notability in his field; references appear to be reliable. Quis separabit? 02:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ten times to the top of Chomolungma is plenty notable. There sources used are reliable. MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angur Baba Joshi[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and not enough references. SeytX (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harsha Bahadur Budha Magar[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and no references. SeytX (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Ranamagar[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources SeytX (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toya Gurung[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and references are not enough. SeytX (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 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 speedy keep. Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrawan Mukarung[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and the ref of BLP is not enough. SeytX (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A search at google books turned up a number of good refs that speak to his notability (for example receiving the Moti award 2003 AD for their work and effort in Nepali art and literature and his impact on Nepalese art described in a book titled "Facing Globalization in the Himalayas: Belonging and the Politics of the Self".--NerudaPoet (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 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 speedy keep. Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadish Ghimire[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahananda Sapkota[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#2 - Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishu Jha[edit]

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

BLP sources seems from one site repeatedly and the person is not notable. SeytX (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subash Gajurel[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and not updted so much things on imdb. SeytX (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dayaram Dahal[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't recall creating this article, and I don't have a lot of energy to argue against deletion, but this source also describes him as "one of Nepal's most prolific commercial directors". Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devu Thapa[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources SeytX (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympians are presumed notable.PRehse (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dachhiri Sherpa[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY. Takes all of two seconds to establish his status as an Olympian and there seem to be plenty of sources out there to improve the article [1] [2] etc -Basement12 (T.C) 09:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin J. Elliott[edit]

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online, only his own promotional websites and suchlike. The best independent source is a blog about Elliott running "scams". Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article with a history of WP:SPA accounts alternately adding and removing material about particular financial ventures which the subject may have promoted. But I am not seeing a substantial claim to notability, not WP:RS evidence. The Canadian Business article may be the most substantial but doesn't demonstrate encyclopaedic notability of any individual discussed there. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with AllyD. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of way too many promotional articles on living people we have in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaram Khadka[edit]

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

Lack of references and the ref links are dead. SeytX (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Dhakal[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Bam[edit]

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

Lack of ref and lack of the reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bikash Dali[edit]

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

Lack of References. And the ref link are dead . SeytX (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played in one first-class cricket match and passes notability criteria. There isn't any dead link in the article as ESPN Cricinfo and Cricket Archive always be accurate in the process of collecting information. Abishe (talk) 11:51, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Man Trishit[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. references 1,2,3,4 and 6 not found. SeytX (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 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. No valid argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Sotang[edit]

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

Lack of references and the first ref link is also not found. SeytX (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, suggesting a speedy keep. Jdcomix (talk) 00:14, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Shrestha[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Shankar[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and the ref link's dead. SeytX (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shambhu Rai[edit]

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

Lack of references and ref links are dead. SeytX (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj Rai[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources and the ref are dead. SeytX (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AFD withdrawn by nominator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zascha Moktan[edit]

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

Not Notable artist with lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had charting music in Germany so passes WP:NMUSIC. Also, the German article has extra references for notability Atlantic306 (talk) 12:33, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pradip Neupane[edit]

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

Not Notable artist and lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:58, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bacchu Kailash[edit]

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

Not any references article seems to be orphan and its not notable. SeytX (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:26, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Joshi[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sukmit Gurung[edit]

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

Not notable musician with lack of reliable sources and the ref link are dead. SeytX (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:28, 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 speedy keep. AFD withdrawn by nominator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciney Gurung[edit]

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

Not Notable Artist and there is not any reliable source. Ref 1,2,3 are dead/not found. SeytX (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've fixed the first reference using web.archive.org, and it's a profile in a national newspaper. I can see a lot more on her online in Nepali, including what looks like television appearances, but will leave it to editors with more knowledge of Nepali media to judge on whether there are sufficient WP:RS. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A HighBeam Search turns up plenty of hits, but nothing very long--just mentions like this: "noted singer", another artist compared to Gurung, [immensely talented https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2833609861.html] which indicate that she's notable in Nepal. I added a little bit to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per national newspaper coverage in the Kathmundu Post and has hit records for WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the rationale posted by Megalibrarygirl. The are many sources and references available, and of course they don't have to be in the article yet, just available. This article needs expansion not deletion. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:19, 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 redirect to Steam locomotive components. Since what we have is outsourced we usually redirect instead of merge but perhaps the source that was found during the discussion can support a comment or two? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Backhead[edit]

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

Railway terminology. WP:DICDEF unsourced since 2009. Sandstein 22:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced since creation in 2004. Per nom, not a dictionary of technical terms. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cab (locomotive). Per Slambo _{Vermont | reply here} 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cab (locomotive), because it's a part of a locomotive cab. As to the point of being unreferenced, page 16 of the 1922 Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice defines it. I am not adding it to the article right now because of this discussion, and the total amount of the content will fit into the cab article. Slambo (Speak) 23:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to merge to Steam locomotive components, since, while it is in the cab, it's really better described as part of the locomotive as a whole. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge to both pages? _{Vermont | reply here} 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition on my part, but this wouldn't be a merger so much as a mere mention of this (outdated) terminology on these pages. I'm indifferent as to where to redirect to. Sandstein 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steam locomotive components per above; however I have never heard of this term before... Some suitable refs may be needed Nightfury 09:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American term. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Bogati[edit]

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

The link of the ekantipur is dead and other are not notable. The page should be removed. SeytX (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Om Bikram Bista[edit]

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

All the references links are dead expect third ref link but the sites includes another artist name called "Prakash Gurung" so this page should be deleted. SeytX (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 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 Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tika Bhandari[edit]

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

All the references links of the articles are dead and the artist is not notable. I strongly think it should be removed from Wikipedia. SeytX (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:46, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Bandana[edit]

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

Not Reliable References and the references of kathmandu post doesnt enlist name Devika Bandana in the news. I review the article and found it doesn't meet wikipedia notable artist policy. So it should be removed from wikipedia. SeytX (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Unity (band)[edit]

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

Lack of references link and reliable sources. All the ref links which were added previously are dead. SeytX (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after a Nepalese specific search and using the Nepali name, this was the best I could come up with. There were a few other sources but they just seemed to name drop them. There also seems to be alternate spelling which I have added above. Mattg82 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:44, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Daou[edit]

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

Factualness queried. If this is fiction, there is no bibliographic info. Whole aspect and the style of the names looks wrong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - complete hoax, none of the sources that I checked have anything about this "gladiator" who lived 200 years before the first gladiators. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like a hoax to me. Some modern people are named Elio Daou. Eliojah Daan is plausible for the period, but would be more of an Israelite name - but due to Tribe of Dan and the double-Theophoric name using the Israelite form (El (deity) + Theophory in the Bible#Yah theophory. Phoenicians would be more likely to be using Baal (as in Hannibal) and a few other suffixes. I don't see sources for this, and some other details do not add up - e.g. the gladiatorial aspect and being the Butcher of Kallas - Kallas seeming to be used in Estonia. Ziyad (a common modern day (and post Islam) Arabic name) would be a highly unlikely name for his father.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as failing WP:V. As an example, even the title of the citation for the book "Who's Who in the Greek World" has been changed to "Who's Who in the Persian World" and links to a random unrelated page [3]. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as noted above all of the evidence points to this being a hoax. Aside from the problems identified above it is highly unlikely that any sources from the time would reveal some of the details here or that subsequent scholars would speculate on them (eg that his wife was childless as she had ovarian cancer) Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hoax. None of the references check out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Seggern[edit]

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

None of the references cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article constitutes an automatic free pass over our notability standards for broadcasters just because he exists, but the article is not reliably sourced well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it — all of the references are either primary sources, or brief blurbs which aren't substantive enough to count as GNG-assisting coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that supports notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 22 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) 20:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew McLellan[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Plenty of stuff about him out there, but all written by him or one of his companies. Edwardx (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivial promo piece and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere PROMO for a nonnotable "national expert" (in branding and marketing.) His "book" is a selfpublished e-book described on the page as "available free" for downloading.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Fatt[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. None of the references provided help towards WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mere PROMO unsupported by WP:RS. Lede reads: "an entrepreneur, consultant and author, with the bulk of his clients being American." Problem is, there are no verifiable, independent sources. He is described as "Fatt is the former Marketing Editor for the Hospitality News.," a non-notable job, sourced only to Hospitality News. Article also asserts that "Fatt has been featured in..." a list of publicattions that includes at least one WP:RS, the Rocky Mountain News, problem is, the citation is to "“The Street Smart Secret To Getting New Customers To Your Restaurant. Hospitality News Rocky Mtn. States Edition, pg. 9." which is not the rocky Mountain News, but the publication Fatt worked for. He may have written this ad other articles listed, in non-notable publications. There is no indication of notability and no SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is a strong claim to passing our notability standards for entrepreneurs, consultants or writers, and all of the sourcing in the article is complete crap with nary a hint of even one reliable source for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG. I can't prove it outright, but this is exactly the sort of "trying really hard but completely missing the boat" article that normally pings my conflict of interest radar. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Lorenzo[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. I have checked out the references, and they are mentions in passing or press releases at best. Nothing found elsewhere. Edwardx (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo is the author of three books. His latest book is titled The 60 Second Sale and will be published by John Wiley & Sons - a worldwide publisher of business books. The book's ISBN is 9781119499763.^[1]

Argument against deletion: Lorenzo is an expert on sales. He is the published author of three books the most recent due out in July 2018 and published by large United States publishing house. I have edited the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencedaniel1999 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the promotional paragraph about development of a legal marketing system for lawyers. ~~LawrenceDaniel1999~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencedaniel1999 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline spam, heavily promotional article about person who does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. Maybe he is an expert on sales, but that's not part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Most published authors are not notable according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article stinks of promotional editing. I don't see any good references that support a keep, apart from the 40 under 40, it's press releases, Youtube videos, blog posts by him, etc. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Sutherlin[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO. Alleged "best selling" book, Change Agents, may have hit some best-selletr list or other, but I can find no reviews or SIGCOV of it or of Sutherlin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculously promotional copy, i.e. known for popularizing automotive digital marketing in the automobile industry. sourced to his own press release. No refs that suggest notability, I think his book was from a vanity house. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 22 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. The "delete" arguments mostly centered around the lack of in-depth, reliable sources. Another argument was that the school had no physical presence, which was disproven. The "keep" votes point to the existence of reliable sources, such that the article meets WP:V , and noting that secondary education articles have traditionally had a lower "entry barrier", a precedent for which there has been no consensus to overturn. There seems to be no consensus if the reliable sources surpass mere local attention, or the degree of depth of coverage. Overall the consensus based on arguments is "keep" for this topic (meaning this particular high school, not high schools in general), but it is not a strong consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Online High School[edit]

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

Delete (or merge into Denver Public Schools) as not meeting WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV sufficiently to warrant a stand alone article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Isn't there a presumption of notability for high schools? Rhadow (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historically they've been kept, except where there are no independent sources. I'm not finding such sources, particularly significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Also see the recent RFC on secondary schools, which concluded secondary schools should not be presumed notable because they exist. By all means point toward some appropriate sources for this organization to warrant keeping the article as a stand alone. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whether it should be kept as an independent article pr merged with the school district it is part of is an editing issue. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N The Banner talk 17:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your recommendation, Banner, then, that we nominate all of the other Category:High schools in Colorado for deletion? They seem to have fewer references than this one. Eaton High School (Colorado), Polaris Expeditionary Learning School, and Florence High School (Colorado). While we are at it, Ennis National School, C.B.S. Secondary School Ennistymon, and St. Anne's Community College would be nominated, too. Rhadow (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. There are some mentions in local media, but nothing significant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not that we presume notability for high schools, rather, we have the practice of normally keeping them as if they were notable; this is part of a compromise to normally not keep elementary schools. The purpose is to avoid the otherwise consequent thousands of debates. Before we had the compromise, I (and others) could generally source about 1/2 the highschools well enough to keep, and perhaps 1/4 of the elementary schools *somewhat better than that in NYC). The RfC of schooloutcomes said there was no consensus to change the practice of generally keeping high schools (It also said there was no consensus that quoting schooloutcomes was enough of an argument--yes, these two findings are somewhat contradictory, but in cases of doubt, we follow the status quo ) (And I will admit that some people do interpret that AfC otherwise, and they are entitled to their views, even though I think they're not analyzing it properly. As an admin, I alway give very conservative advice, but in a discussion, I think I have the actual responsibility to give whatI think the correct interpretation. ). There is furthermore a reasonable amount of sourcing for this one. Perhaps ones that merely appear on a list might be candidates for removal, if we could get consensus on that--it might be an acceptable compromise. I, at any rate, normally do ~vote delete if there's nothing more than presence on a list, because that isn't enough verification. I usually will support any compromise that gets articles out of AfD, even if I don;t quite agree it's the best compromise possible. DGG ( talk ) 11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see significant coverage and the school is tiny. I take the point about other high schools failing [[WP:SIGCOV}}, but the size and lack of real physical campus of this school seems to make it a special case. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tacyarg -- I acknowledge your argument that there is insufficient press coverage of the school, but I disagree. The Denver Post and Colorado Public Radio are reliable sources. Size, however, is specious argument. Monaco should be deleted from WP because of its tiny size. The school does have a physical presence, even if students are not required to be there. Tennessee Virtual Academy if it had an article, has 634 students. It is no less a school than any other. Rhadow (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed as "keep" but is now relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus for keeping high schools has not changed (RfC was no consensus). But more so, the CPR story is a fine RS. It has around five paragraphs on this topic. The rest is either in-passing or non-independent I'd say. But it is a high school and it has one solid independent reliable source with plenty of non-independent sourcing we can use for facts. Hobit (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are reliable sources in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not high schools are inherently notable, there's an established low barrier to entry which this article meets. Namely, based on RS (incidental mentions in the Denver Post, a more substantive mention on Colorado Public Radio, and a listing on the Denver Public Schools website) we can do the bare minimum of proving it actually exists which - while not normally sufficient - seems to be for secondary schools. Chetsford (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rule for high schools only works with institutions that have a physical presence. For institutions that only exist online, they need to be judged by general institutional notability standards, and this institution fails those standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unaware of that being a requirement, but in any case, this one does have a physical presence. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per CLarry and JPL.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:04, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Cathey[edit]

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

WP:BLP, not referenced to any strong reliable source coverage about him, of a filmmaker with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim here is that he was one of 11 winners of an amateur filmmaking award from his local film festival for a three-minute short film, and the source for that is a mere blurb which mentions his name while failing to actually be about him, and the only other "reference" here is his own self-published YouTube profile. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, is valid grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage, and agree that isn't a claim to Wiki-notability here. Mortee (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Valid source from The Seattle Times newspaper cited to improve the article as well as to add a meaningful contribution to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarshmallowz (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — Zmarshmallowz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because one source for it exists in their local newspaper. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article by having a broad range of coverage in a variety of newspapers, not just the moment they have one piece of coverage in an exclusively local context. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. WP:1E. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not passing WP:Creative. Alex (Talk) 20:54, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyani Natarajan[edit]

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

None of the sources are in depth coverage of the subject. At best they are passing mentions and some don't even mention her name. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Most of her roles aren't named and she is billed as mother of x, wife of y etc Dom from Paris (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable roles in several major films. Also prominent in commercials. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell us which were significant roles in notable films as per NACTOR please? And which sources meet GNG as per relationship between subject specific criteria and GNG. ? When you !vote it is useful to explain more in detail your reasonsDom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. Roles are all minor; commercial work does not help with ACTOR either. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Sources are passing mentions of small roles. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:33, 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 Speedy deletion at authors request. Amortias (T)(C) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James Tamondong[edit]

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

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

Article is on a salesman at On The Run Shoes, a sports retail store in San Francisco, California, and is sourced to the store's website, and profile pages on some body building social media sites. Does not pass the NATHLETE or GNG at this time. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added Michael James Tamondong, an older duplicate of the MJ Tamondong. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable self-promotion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deleted the original article named in this nomination under G7, but the AfD shuldn't be closed yet. ansh 666 05:02, 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 speedy Delete. 21:04, 16 February 2018 User:Amortias deleted page (non-admin closure) Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maqar Central Library[edit]

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

This is apparently the campus library of an unknown university in India. In my BEFORE I was unable to even identify which university it belongs to via RS, however, via non-RS it appears it belongs to Al-Maqar Dawa College which - itself - doesn't have a WP article to which this could be merged and/or redirected. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the school isn't notable, the library attached to the school definitely isn't. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should be keep Its a notable library in Taliparamba. Raheempunnad (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a noteworthy minor library. I feel it is also a candidate for Speedy deletion. I have tagged as such. Let us see if it gets speedied. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 13:47, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brice W. Goldsborough[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO since notability is not inherited, being the son of a governor is not notable. Only source is an obituary. Rusf10 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - On newspapers.com, I find a couple routine mentions of where he was stationed in the USN (he retired a commander). His obituary is also in the Baltimore Sun, which carried a few other passing social mentions. I don't see enough that would allow for a clearly NPOV article about him, though. Although the current article doesn't mention it, I'm going to add this to the Military delsort list as he was a Naval commander and perhaps someone watching that list would be interested. I would say that his uncle, Dr. Brice W. Goldsborough, might be suitable for an article in the future. That Brice was an interesting medical doctor and a co-founder of the Cambridge, Maryland Hospital, which became Dorchester General Hospital and is now University of Maryland Shore Regional Health. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it was a full obituary as opposed to just a notice of death, then an obit in the Washington Post should satisfy notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure if that is true. I am generally happy for people to believe it, because I think that multiple sources covering an individual should include small newspapers, and often an individuals only coverage in a large paper will be an obituary. But my feeling is that the an obituary is one event, and I'd like to see coverage for other events. For instance in this case, Goldsborough has high enough profiles due to his relationships or public positions (son of a governor, commander in the Navy) that his obituary is nationally covered (newspapers.com gives versions in Baltimore, Wilmington, and Des Moines). To me, the Baltimore Sun and Des Moines Tribune are both regionally respected newspapers and reliable sources, of only slightly lower stature than the Post (especially before the contraction of news desks in the 2000s). To me, then, all I would need to see is in-depth coverage at another period. All I find are passing mentions, mentions of his uncle, and his wife's obituary.[4] Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all by itself, no. It would certainly be a valid source in an article that was well-sourced to a solid range and depth of coverage, but it doesn't singlehandedly confer a WP:GNG pass all by itself as an article's only source. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a death notice does not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to find this [5]. Seems he rose up to be an embassy attache. A death notice is not enough, even if it is WaPo (and particularly so since he was a Washington area (state dept.) son of an important person (Maryland) - which would make this possibly WaPo local coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's certainly possible that he might have a stronger notability claim than this article actually states or sources — but being an embassy attaché is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in and of itself, and one death notice is not enough sourcing to get him over WP:GNG for it. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually find enough sourcing to write more substance about him than just the fact that he existed, but nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 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 delete A7, no claim of significance. ... discospinster _talk 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FrameMail.cf[edit]

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

Article is on an email service launched last week. Lack of RS and fails GNG. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete. Should be eligible for A7 as a wholly unremarkable website. With an article created so soon after the launch, the reason for creation becomes obvious. MER-C 13:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Of someone ever wants to transwiki then I will undelete for them to do it but transaction has become deprecated anyway as it's often is dumping our rubbish on other wikis who generally don't respond well to that... Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameleurion[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF of a term, flagged for transfer to Wiktionary since 2014 without the transwiki actually occurring. Four years isn't okay: we need to either force it or dump it now. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is there a policy or guideline dealing with the time period for transwiki requests? My initial thought would be that, as long as the information is sourced and not harmful in some way such as a copyright violation, this situation would be analogous to the reasoning of the essay WP:NODEADLINE and the policy WP:PRESERVE. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no formal deadline spelled out in policy, but that doesn't mean we have infinite patience for things that aren't happening — it's a pretty well established consensus that even if there isn't a formal deadline per se, things still have to happen within a reasonable amount of time. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:DICTDEF fail as well as a paucity of sources using this term (at least in this spelling) which make this fail GNG as well.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 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) 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hitoshi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, formatted as a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and not referenced to any reliable source coverage about him. An artist does not get an automatic pass over WP:NARTIST (or even WP:ANYBIO) just by bulletpointing a primary sourced list of awards -- an award counts as a notability claim only to the extent that it can be reliably sourced to media coverage about the granting of that award, and not if the only possible source is the award's own self-published website about itself -- and the only other references here are his own website, a short blurb on the corporate blog of a commercial stock-photo service, and primary source copies of his photographs themselves. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is determined by being the subject of media coverage, not just by being able to primary-source that the person exists -- but there's no evidence of media coverage being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletethe nom arguments are mostly correct notability is not established by the sources, which are lacking. (However I think Getty Images is a very serious operation.)104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm not denying that Getty Images is a serious operation. But it's not a media outlet, so blurbing a photographer on its corporate blog doesn't constitute GNG-assisting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get you, and I appreciate your highly thoughtful AfD arguments. I still think that being a Getty staff photog counts for something, GNG-wise, in the sense that they only take very serious types. I also think our photog is probably notable but there are inadequate published sources to demonstrate it. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's had at least one photobook published. Here's the publisher's blurb about it. This doesn't prove notability, of course; but it does make me wonder if the feebleness of the current article results in part from its creators' incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for photographers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner[edit]

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

promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the founder, and an attempt to add advertising links for their various services .and other people connected with the company DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, as DGG says, the article is promotional. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references include several press releases, pages about the individual partners who own the company (not about the company), pages which merely include the company in a list, and so on. My own searches produced the company's own web site, this Wikipedia article, more press releases, LinkedIn, etc etc: nothing even suggesting notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional. Articles on law firms that advertise on Wikipedia should be deleted on sight IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 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 delete. Sandstein 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Sichenzia[edit]

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

promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the firm, and an attempt to add advertising links for his various services . DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pure self-promotion. This is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 19:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the article is blatant promotion. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is an example of bombarding an article with numerous references in the hope that will give the impression of being well-sourced, but with none of the references contributing evidence of notability. From the 20 references I took a random sample of six of them, as there is a limit to how much time I am willing to spend on analysing a spam article. The six references were as follows. An article in which Sichenzia contributes opinions about the subject of the article, not an article about him; a report published by a company for which he has worked as an editor, so it may be written by him, and in any case it is not an independent source; a dead link, but judging both from the title of the link and the context in which it is cited in the article it was (a) about his company, not about him, and (b) merely a listing of the company in a table, not substantial coverage; a YouTube video which I haven't watched, but from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a page behind a paywall which I haven't read, but once again from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a list of nineteen participants in giving a course, Sichenzia being one of the nineteen. Unless I happen by remarkable bad luck to have randomly selected six very atypical references, there is a serious lack of evidence of notability. What is more, my own search failed to find anything better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linked in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 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. Partly for the procedural reasons, but mainly because it seems like not all sources cited by SoWhy have been called unsuitable to establish GNG notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The White Company (retailer)[edit]

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

no evidence for notability -- refs are just PR and notices DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Considering the last AFD (with basically the same deletion rationale) closed as unanimous keep less than a month ago, why do you feel the guidance at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion or WP:ATD do not apply here? Also, why do you think renominating for deletion instead of adding the sources mentioned at the last AFD was preferable? Last but not least, how was WP:BEFORE followed in this case? Regards SoWhy 18:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no one else bothered to do the actual work after AFD #1 ended, I have now added the sources mentioned there to the article. Regards So Why 20:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the last AFD was in January. The result was keep. The retail chain hasn't suddenly become less notable. Loads of sources with substantial coverage identified during the last nomination. Why are we wasting time on another? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its is well established brand with high revenue AyaanLamar (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, AyaanLamar, for participating in this AfD. Thank you, also, for creating your account earlier today. Always happy to have new editors on the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Neutral. Let's look at those references cited in the last AfD (there certainly aren't any references in the article establishing notability):
- [6] Obvious press release is obvious. Supplying pillows to an airline does not establish notability.
- [7] A trade magazine reporting on the profits of one of the businesses in the trade. News flash! https://cbwmagazine.com/ just reported that Martin West is Great Britain’s new Sales Director for Scania Bus & Coach!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- [8] Obvious press release is obvious.
- [9] Oh boy! They are opening up a new store in NYC! If that doesn't make them notable I don't know what will!!
- [10]Another obvious press release about supplying pillows to an airline.
- [11]] ..and yet another obvious press release about the store in NYC. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if you were right, why would deletion be preferable to merging/redirecting to Chrissie Rucker per WP:ATD? Regards So Why 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

because she is not notable either. OBE is not enough for notability, DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, she clearly meets WP:BASIC at the very least. But as long as her article exists, redirecting/merging would always be the better option. Since you have come back to this nomination btw, would you mind answering my question above why you felt it necessary to renominate this less than a month after the last AFD closed without addressing any of the reasons why the article was kept the last time? Regards So Why 08:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it tiring that nowadays "it's a press release!" without proof is deemed sufficient to delete articles about notable subjects. When we no longer accept The Times or The New York Times as reliable sources, what is left? There are dozens of sources about the company and its founder just a short Google search away:
- Paton, Elizabeth (2017-06-12). "A British Home Empire Aims to Colonize America". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-02-15 – via NYTimes.com.
- Karmel, Annabel (2015-02-12). Mumpreneur: The complete guide to starting and running a successful business. Ebury Publishing. p. 184. ISBN 9781448177387 – via Google Books.
- Rosenberg, Michelle (2007). Inspiring Women: How Real Women Succeed in Business. Crimson Publishing. p. 23. ISBN 9781854584106 – via Google Books.
- Gunter, Barrie (2017-04-21). Why Women Should Be Taken More Seriously in the Boardroom. Routledge. p. 104. ISBN 9781315467030 – via Google Books.
- Heminsley, Judy (2009-03-05). Work From Home: How to make money working at home - and get the most out of life. Little, Brown Book Group. ISBN 9781848035997 – via Google Books.
- Hall, James (2011-01-04). "The White Company sales jump 24pc over Christmas". ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2018-02-15 – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
- Sibun, Jonathan (2011-07-15). "The White Company bucks trend with fastest sales growth in four years". ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2018-02-15 – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
- Thompson, Christopher (2012-12-04). "A lighter shade of pale". Financial Times. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards So Why 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's funny because I was only thinking to myself that I find it tiring that nowadays reasons such as "but look at all the times it gets mentioned", without bothering to check if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, is trotted out at practically every company-related AfD. This is little more than another version of WP:GHITS only instead of listing the total, some of the links are posted instead. Articles like this one from telegraph.co.uk and and this one that you posted above, filled with intellectually independent gems such as "The White Company said", "the company said", "In a further change set to be announced today", "The group said", "Mrs Rucker said", "Ms Alford-Burnett said", "The group said", "The retailer said", Tpatricia Alford-Burnett, managing director, said", etc. Seriously, the criteria for establishing notability are there for a reason - one of them being to avoid relying on PRIMARY sources (whether published in reliable secondary sources or not) as sources to establish notability. You also appear to suggest that editors claim the sources are not reliable - again I believe that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding (on your part) on what the intention of the criteria for establishing notability says and what editors who are following those guidelines are saying. None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable. What is being said is that an article based extensively on a company announcement or press release is considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability, regardless of whether it is published in a reliable secondary source with no corporate connection with the topic company. None of the references produced meet the criteria, the references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or (more often) fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which basically proves my point. "Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND / WP:NCORP / WP:GNG" is the most standard !vote in such AFDs and rarely really fits. WP:GNG says [i]f 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 or list and all three requirements are fulfilled here:
  - Even you agree that the sources are reliable, so that is not problematic.
  - Per GNG's definition, "significant coverage" is all coverage where the topic is directly covered in detail. That's the case for example with [12] [13] [14] [15] and others.
  - A source is considered "independent" if it has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). That certainly applies to The Times, The New York Times, The Telegraph or The Financial Times.

So at least some of the sources are suffient to establish notability per GNG which is why while I'm always happy to discuss such issues rationally, I fail to see how GNG is not met in this case. On a side note, you also failed to answer the question why WP:ATD is not preferable even if you were right. Regards So Why 11:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: Re "None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable", The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything -- see WP:DAILYMAIL, and Drapers Online is not reliable for establishing notability, because they will gladly cover any company in the fashion business, no matter how obscure. Yet these were touted as evidence of notability in the first AfD and nobody bothered to check them. That's reason enough to post a new AfD in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this news search and per SoWhy. Mary Homer went to run it, giving Sir Philip Green a bloody nose over it. Frankly this AfD smacks of systemic bias, as I don't think the average Wikipedian is interested in fashion and shopping, or seeing how women can do a better job of running a large organisation than men. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paging AfD #1 participants : Andrew Davidson, Domdeparis, Topperfalkon, Slideshow Bob and The Rambling Man Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot SamHolt6 as nominator. Regards So Why 14:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, well made. (I intended to ping everybody; the fact that most people !voted "keep" is coincidental). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nothing has changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:BEFORE #B4: "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations ..." Andrew D. (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can confirm it's a well-known business. Blythwood (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we done here? This looks like a remarkably short-sighted nomination, especially given that the last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago. I'm shocked that the nominator is a member of Arbcom, I had expected these elected individuals to know better than to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago with very little evidence of notability. While the consensus is clearly to keep, the evidence is still marginal. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep just survived an AfD a couple weeks ago and article has been even further improved since with sources showing WP:N. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per the previous afd and the above arguments. Some of the sources are press releases but a lot are not. Notability is clearly proved Dom from Paris (talk) 18:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlternateHistory (website)[edit]

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

Article makes no independently verified claim of notability. Per WP:BEFORE, the subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Stuff like this and this are mere mentions; not nearly enough. This blog associated with NYT and this from heavy.com are also mere mentions; the articles aren't about the website. I also don't think this is an appropriate redirect to the article about alternate history. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Mentions in books and blogs are not enough to make something notable. --★Yexstorm2001★ (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--non-notable web content ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:41, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Babak[edit]

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

The only sources of information seem to be official Soviet reports, which may be pure propaganda. However, I don't read Russian or Ukrainian, so I cannot be sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a recipient of his nation's highest level award, the title Hero of the Soviet Union, regardless of the amount of propaganda in these sources. The propaganda issue can be fixed by attributing the potentially controversial statements. Kges1901 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER(1). Even some English coverage of the Russian coverage - [16]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not that notable outside of Russia, but enough to pass. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the last recipients of the award. Passes WP:SOLDIER. Ample sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I didn't think of WP:SOLDIER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 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. Sandstein 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coherus BioSciences[edit]

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

Article written like an advertisement; company not notable, originating author blocked for sockpuppetry and undisclosed payments. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 17:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I just did what i could try to make this into an article, but there is surprisingly little solid reporting about this company and its business. Given the promotional pressure and the blatant stock-flogging, delete this.Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources available to write a balanced encyclopedic article. Rentier (talk) 19:44, 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH, declined speedy. Let's all spend a week faffing around before the inevitable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no opinion, but the link cited by Andy Dingley above contains the text "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --Jayron 32 17:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's all spend a week faffing around before the inevitable" is not the best deletion rationale I've seen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a CSD reason, or at least a snow delete. But Jayron is keen to keep it, so he removed the speedy. If AIRCRASH can't be applied here, then that's at variance to the rest of all the deleted aircrash articles, even those with multiple fatalities, where it is seemingly inevitable.

Now, let the pointless faffing continue. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He removed a CSD tag that had an invalid rationale. That doesn't mean he'd vote keep. Frankly you're attitude here is making it less likely that I'd vote delete, and I'm the one who tagged the article for notability. Pick an actual deletion rationale or I'll say it should be kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep because I'm having an argument with the nominator". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not keen to keep it. I have no opinion one way or the other. --Jayron 32 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "keep because the nominator didn't provide a good rationale". Procedural, and common. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. A similar incident to Air France Flight 66, but this isn't an WP:OSE argument: the coverage of that flight extended into the weeks. I think it's likely notable if the news coverage is durational, but we don't know that yet. By the time this AfD closes, it may well be notable. Not a great article at the moment, but not as obvious a delete as the nominator seems to believe it is on WP:N grounds. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 66 is a weak case for notability and probably wouldn't survive AfD. Nor would Qantas Flight 32. However they were also uncontained engine failures, something which is just not supposed to happen, especially not on such a new aircraft type. So they have a reasonable claim for notability, for their technical aspects, rather than their newsworthiness. This event though - despite being described in the article as an uncontained engine failure (it isn't), and added to that article (it isn't) - this event was nothing like so serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between the seriousness of an uncontained engine failure vs. a near complete mid-flight removal of the engine cowling seems like an arbitrary one, especially when we have no credible accident investigators or aircraft engineers publicly stating that this incident was in fact "not serious" (and, again, many significant secondary sources do seem to have decided that it was significant, and will most likely do followup stories as details emerge). -- Eherot (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err..... No. Serious difference. You don't need the cowlings to fly. More importantly, a cowling falling off doesn't have the energy to seriously damage the main structure of the aircraft. A rotating engine core very much does - which is why it's kept inside an armoured bucket. If that bucket fails to do its job, that's very serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been extensive coverage over months of both Air France 66 and Qantas 32, and Qantas 32 survived an AfD right after the incident. I don't think we'll get here with this one - I think it'll go away after the news cycle. If this sticks in the news coverage, I'd change my vote. Notability doesn't have anything to do with what separates from what part of the aircraft. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - not at all a serious incident; coverage is routine and highly unlikely to have any lasting impact. ansh 666 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:GNG , and i clearly understand WP:NOTNEWS but this is not the case here , this is not only about news as this incident marks a history in civil aviation.The history of this event wont fade away as it is taken investigation by Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. AyaanLamar (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Everything cited here as a reason for deletion suggests that notability is strongly related to the number of secondary sources covering the issue and how long it is expected to remain in the news. Currently Google turns up over 2,600 news-related hits for this incident and the NYT has deigned to grant it multiple days of coverage on their front page. What's more: This article is almost certain to receive future front-page coverage in multiple global news sources as new details emerge. I and many others prefer to go to Wikipedia for these details because it is less likely to parrot unconfirmed speculation. Lastly, there are few examples of major engine malfunctions (where parts fell off of the airplane in mid flight) on large, commercial airliners where the incident did not turn out to have historical significance with ultimately thousands of people seeking to read the associated Wikipedia entry. -- Eherot (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with how many people want to come to Wikipedia to read about something. That's the very core of WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as per Ansh666. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It states that '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 or list', this itself is a reason to keep the page. Moreover, the given sources have exclusive articles on the incident which clearly states that it is a popular aviation accident and is investigates by FAA and NTSB. AyaanLamar (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has no established lasting impact, and the current wave of coverage by reliable sources can be attributed to the fact that this is a news story now. However, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, this is not grounds for the maintenance of an article. It is also worth noting that whatever momentary coverage of the crash does exist is only a result of the fact that it occurred in the United States. It can not be stated at this point that this incident has any lasting historical significance (to do so would violate WP:CRYSTAL in my view), and as such this non-fatal incident derives no lasting notability, and thereby fails WP:GNG. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we Keep it per WP:AIRCRASH? This article clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Break in the normal operation of airline and airport. 5. Suspension - Part of the airline's fleet were stopped. AyaanLamar (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That says you're not supposed to use it to determine a stand-alone article, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation, as stated by A lad insane, and as the statement of a WikiProject does not usurp fundamental Wikipedia rules like WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, per those self-same guidelines, it only provides notability for aircraft which resulted in fatalities (no), hull loss or significant damage (no), or major changes to procedure for airlines (per WP:CRYSTAL, no). Therefore, it does not state that this incident is notable in any way. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you actually read the alphabet soup you cite, or do I have to directly quote it a second time for greater effect. Let me save you the trouble "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --Jayron 32 02:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32:WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation - both A lad insane and I explicitly mention that WP:AIRCRASH is not permissible here, despite the intention of some to apply it erroneously when it does not even bolster their point. Thanks for the reiteration. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. No one died, no one was injured and the plane landed normally. The only effect this had was to scare the crap out of a few people on the plane. That shouldn't have happened, but ~~it's United Airlines, what less do we expect~~ it's not bad enough. Maybe if the engine actually dismantled, but this was only the casing. Not the whole thing. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and fails to meet criteria suggested in WP:AIRCRASH (a very sensible attempt to lay down criteria for aircraft accident articles). A non-notable incident promoted by the "we must have articles on absolutely everything" brigade. This incident would, however, warrant entries in relevant lists and aircraft articles.--Petebutt (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AS per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG as well as WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A cowling latch failed or was left undone and then media goes wild as usual. No serious damage done, no injuries, no deaths and the aircraft landed safely. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to keep (which I doubt, after reading the above statements), then the article needs to be seriously re-written. Poor English used all over. Dannythewikiman (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as everyone else. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete A single day news item which is unlikely to generate ongoing coverage, but at any rate, it hasn't generated on going coverage yet. We clearly lack the will to speedy these things, so there is always going to be a race to put every incident from the day's news in an article, and thus there will always be these really quite unnecessary deletion discussions if WP:NOTNEWS were to be taken seriously. Too many people can't figure out that "I get Ghits on news articles for something that happened yesterday" isn't good enough. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to History_of_United_Airlines#2018_planned_growth_through_2020. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Andy Dingley:, @Muboshgu:, @SportingFlyer:, @Eherot:, @AyaanLamar:, @Ansh666:, @IJBall:, @Stormy clouds:, @Jayron32:, @A lad insane:, @Petebutt:, @Ahunt:, @Dannythewikiman:, @ZLEA:, @Mangoe:, @Andrewgprout:, why can this term and "Flight 1175" not be kept and merged/redirected as a useful search term? I am finding that people seem to be too delete happy instead of redirecting and/or merging useful search terms. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The spaces at the end disable the pings, apparently. Mine didn't work and I imagine many of the others won't for the same reason. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that - maybe. Not really sure. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this fits under History_of_United_Airlines#2018_planned_growth_through_2020. Planned growth by terrifying high profile accidents? That's a new one. AIRCRASH already gives guidance for whether it should be part of an airline article (it shouldn't) and if it can't meet that, a standalone article is even less likely. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to completely retype it. There has to be a signature in the same edit. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A lad insane: - thanks. Here goes: @Andy Dingley:, @Muboshgu:, @SportingFlyer:, @AyaanLamar:, @Ansh666:, @IJBall:, @Jayron32:, @Petebutt:, @Ahunt:, @Dannythewikiman:, @ZLEA:, @Mangoe:, @Andrewgprout: - I am pinging you all following User:Jax 0677's failed attempt to do so earlier. It is his wish that you view his argument above, and I am only acting to effectively ping you to this discussion. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it works now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I got that ping. I don't know that this is a likely search term for anybody. What would it redirect to? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in the UA article should only list notable accidents and incidents - I didn't bother to check all the links to see if any of them are redirects to list articles, but the few I did check weren't. UA (the airline and the article) is simply too big to mention every single incident, and there's no standalone article on them, so there isn't really a good merge target. ansh 666 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Andy Dingley:, the section about 2018 can be retitled to something suitable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is nothing notable here to merge into the airline's history section or anywhere else. It just isn't notable. Minor damage to an aircraft, it is probably already fixed and flying again. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm usually not of the delete happy type, but this article is at the moment non-notable per WP:AIRCRASH, however, I copied the article to my sandbox at User:ZLEA/sandbox/United Airlines Flight 1175 in case the crash does become notable. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 15:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely WP:UNDUE in the history article. It's too minor of an incident even for the "accidents and incidents" part. ansh 666 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how the events in this article get anywhere even close to - WP:EVENTCRITERIA which says "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)". Andrewgprout (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As many have stated above WP:NOTNEWS applies here. While this type of failure is comparatively rare, the majority of the secondary sources don't provide a whole lot of info that would satisfy WP:GNG apart from stating it happened and passengers were scared. MSM have a habit of sensationalising anything to do with air travel, and the 24 hour news cycle means there will always be a lot of coverage, especially when there is visible damage/passengers with mobile phone videos. In the absence of significant damage to the aircraft structure, such as in Qantas Flight 32 or even Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 it appears to have been a fairly straightforward engine failure and I could argue WP:MILL applies here too. Dfadden (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't feel like voting at the moment. However, I shall say that, at least, we have a Wikinews article covering this subject. If the Wikipedia counterpart doesn't survive, at least we have Wikinews. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AIRCRASH should not be cited here. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 13:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, aside from 15 minutes in the breaking news.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: anytime an engine comes apart in flight, it is a notable aviation incident, even if no loss of life results. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The engine didn't come apart, only the covering. The engine itself seemed to be unaffected. ansh 666 19:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is missing a fan blade. Surely that is part of the engine. --178.19.221.38 (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to source "missing a fan blade" as there are any number of vague handwaves at this, without any real source.

It does seem that a blade was lost. I've seen one tweet with one photo, which may be of this incident. [17]

Questions still remain:

Did the engine shed a blade, fail to contain it, and then strip the nacelle as a result? That is serious - an uncontained failure, and as per the A380 incidents I'd support keeping it. But it needs real sourcing.
Did the cowling (or a birdstrike) get ingested, damage a blade, and then the engine contain the bits, as it's designed to do. That's nothing like as serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG and no injuries sustained. Similar mishaps have taken place several times over the past few years. EnjoysButter (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incidents like these are commonplace enough to gain a few minutes of news coverage, but that's about it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS - No loss of life so no impact locally or worldwide. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not noteworthy. No loss of life and no crash. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is of marginal notability; succeeds primarily on moderate depth of coverage in RS. In-flight separation of a major engine part--or any important airplane part--that results in significant in-flight bumpiness is not Run of the Mill and not Routine. By definition, it was News, but that's not an automatic disqualifier. I recommend keep as a service to readers who are interested in airliner incidents, particularly one that resulted in unique and frightening in-flight images. DonFB (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Semi-viral video. Single new-cycle reporting. Engine loss is fairly common. No reason to expected this will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A stand alone article is not necessary for this incident. - Samf4u (talk) 13:53, 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 delete. Sandstein 22:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lick Twist[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND. The article is mostly sourced by music blogs and social media, and I don't see significant coverage of them online in WP: Reliable sources. There is this profile in an online magazine which claims 8 million monthly visitors, but that's all I can find online. There's a lot of unsourced and poorly sourced info about them, suggesting WP:COI, though that can be fixed. They've done well on Spotify, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're highly successful in a few years, but for now this is WP:TOOSOON. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must agree with the nominator here on how it's too soon for a WP article. This duo has been introduced in genre publications like YourEDM and Impose Magazine but significant coverage has not happened yet. Otherwise only video and stream listings can be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Band has quite a lot of coverage across the board. If Wikipedia is going to be Time Magazine and New York Times only, we're going to have to delete a whole lot of articles. Definitely not too soon as this band has been in existence for 3 solid years and is making constant progress, as noted within the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egrant1102 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE -- the "what about other articles" argument is not entirely compelling in this type of deletion discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 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 Jellyfishbabies. Sandstein 22:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Unkind Truth About Rome[edit]

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

Album with no credible claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As always, albums are not automatically entitled to have standalone Wikipedia articles just because the band that recorded them has one, or even just because it's technically possible to verify the track listing. To qualify for its own article separately from just having its name mentioned in the band's discography, an album has to have verified Nielsen Soundscan chart placements, Juno Award nominations, or at the very least enough reliable source attention (e.g. reviews by professional music critics in real newspapers or music magazines) to clear WP:GNG. But there's no evidence of any of that here -- this states nothing about the album that would constitute an actual notability claim at all, and cites no references. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One potential source is a couple of substantial paragraphs about the album in the book Have Not Been the Same [18], which is also cited in the main article about the band. I haven't found anything else yet. As Bearcat says, some substantial reliable-source reviews or other coverage would be helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jellyfishbabies. Nothing found other than the book identified above. It seems unlikely in this case that enough coverage exists to support an article. --Michig (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 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. Sandstein 22:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon (Laser Tag)[edit]

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

Minor laser tag tournament. Most all are affiliated sources, and no RS. Unnotable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable event. Almost all sources provided are unreliable. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 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. Sandstein 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP Symposium[edit]

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

Does not appear to be significant, and article issues have never been addressed. Welcome discussion. PabloMartinez (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Simon Goodchild, the original creator of the page, and I support the need to delete it as it doesn't really add any value, and can appear as an advert. Therefore, I vote for deletion. Simon.goodchild 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:08, 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 speedy keep. The personal bio added to this redirect by a new user has been reverted; no remaining argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Warrior[edit]

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

PabloMartinez (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep was a redirect, changed to unsourced BLP (PRODBLP-material), I reverted it back to the redirect. Kleuske (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there is no deletion rationale. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:04, 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. Sandstein 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe franchise and codeshare destinations[edit]

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

A list of codeshare destinations is not an encyclopedic topic. The Flybe article already identifies the codeshare partners. This article adds nothing to understanding of Flybe. Rhadow (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR, nothing in this article is of encyclopedic value.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Enough with the WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Discuss this at the DRV where it belongs. Smartyllama (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The current DRV Adria Airways destinations [19] includes only members of the Star Alliance. Flybe has nothing to do with Star Alliance. This article doesn't even describe Flybe's destinations. It describes places to which Flybe can issue a codeshare ticket. Rhadow (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is WP:NOTDIR; codeshares aren't operated by the primary airline and do nothing to help understand the core topic. Side note: this AfD has nothing to do with the DRV in my opinion. Garretka (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add, the airlines themselves on the page host a small table with this information on their own articles, making this article redundant. Garretka (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Garretka. A good example of what destination lists shouldn't be. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:42, 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. Sandstein 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Air Charter destinations[edit]

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

This unreferenced article gives no indication that Bulgarian Air Charter has ever flown to the destinations in the list. As a charter operator, any customer with a passenger list and a bank account can organize a trip anywhere within range of an A320. Rhadow (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and discuss this in the appropriate DRV. Stop with the WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is quite enough. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The current DRV Adria Airways destinations [20] includes only members of the Star Alliance. Bulgarian Air Charter has nothing to do with Star Alliance. It doesn't even offer scheduled service, which makes a discussion of destinations a bit strange in itself. Rhadow (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm generally in favor of retaining lists of airline destinations, but since this airline does not offer regularly scheduled service, this particular list should go. Some of these flights may have only took place once. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:23, 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. Sandstein 22:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national ice hockey teams by nickname[edit]

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

List items do not pass WP:GNG other than the Big Six (ice hockey) teams. Contents of list are otherwise unreferenced and WP:LISTCRUFT. Flibirigit (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced original research. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's inexcusable and uncalled for in fact, I find the accusation that an editor created an AfD for an article and discussed, "List items do not pass WP:GNG other than the Big Six (ice hockey) teams". You think this list about nicknames (or lack thereof) of national ice hockey teams failing both WP:LISTN and WP:GNG? The problem is some national ice hockey teams do not have any nicknames! AaronWikia (talk) 22:11, 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 delete. Sandstein 22:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tauqeer Sheikh[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Majority of the listed references simply fail. References from YouTube, DAWN, The News are self-written and are not independent. Other listed references do not tell anything about the subject. M A A Z T A L K 15:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent sources are required to establish notability. samee ^talk 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources that establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 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. Sandstein 22:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of international television channels[edit]

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

Nowadays it is common for channels to distribute in multiple countries. LISTCRUFT, no specific criteria. Störm (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, the inclusion criteria here are somewhere between indiscriminate and entirely nonexistent — many of the entries here are not actually television channels with worldwide distribution, but are multinational media companies which operate different channels in different countries (Sky Italia is not, frex, the same channel as Sky UK just because they're both owned by Sky plc), while others broadcast terrestrially only in one country and then use internet streaming to reach the rest of the world. And if that latter was an inclusion criteria, then in 2018 almost every television channel that exists at all would belong in this list. It's basically just pointless. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 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) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeSmuME[edit]

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

Non-notable game emulator. The mentions it did get were about it being ported to PSP but are not significant enough for it to pass WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite being a good emulator, emulators rarely get great media coverage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete drought of sources that pass WP:RS, unfortunately. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have gotten any coverage that would make it past WP:GNG, unfortunately. ansh 666 19:18, 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. Sandstein 22:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trocadero (name origin)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor, who provided no rationale. The article itself has no sources, and indeed no defined topic - it's not about a specific Torcadero, or a specific use of the name. This article was forked in 2007, as a result of Trocadero becoming a disambiguation page. The origins of the name are discussed at Trocadero, however, which makes this non-specific article redundant. The only incoming link to this article is from that disamb page. Based on all that, I believe this can be deleted without the loss of any information. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's hard to imagine that this would be the page where any reader would go for this information, as the Trocadero page is the obvious choice. I created this page in 2007, just to unburden the dab page, and it seems superfluous now. Chris the speller ^yack 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the nominating IP. Wikipedia did not allowed me to continue with the process by creating this page, so I just went away. I suggest you fix the process. - 91.10.6.125 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a longstanding practice not to let anonymous editors create pages. This is meant for articles, because it is easy to create a massive number of articles very rapidly, and that could be abused. But it also extends to project pages like this one. That is why we have systems like WP:BADAFD, which flags AFDs that haven't been completed yet. Most of those are like yours. So I and others will complete them for you, or ask for your reasoning and do it that way. I understand that it's inconvenient, but the alternative isn't really an option. Thanks for nominating this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 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 delete. Sandstein 23:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kucoin[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Little to no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary souces. Most of the cited references are press releases, re-published press releases, or blog-like self-published content. Citobun (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are cryptoPR. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intent-based networking[edit]

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

A puff-piece for Gartner; is this a notable term of just another lump of wannabee jargon. TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author removed much of the opinion attributed to Gartner. They did coin the term and the definition, and are often thought of as a neutral, credible source, but the focus should be on research and development across the industry. The term is no less notable at this point than other related terms like Software Defined Networking, or IT network assurance and many others. Virtually every IT networking vendor in the industry has gotten behind this technology with plans to develop solutions as documented in the article. Gkinghorn (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON & seems to be WP:ADVOCACY at this point, with the article peppered with vendor names, such as:

Cisco became the first large commercial networking vendor to embrace intent-based networking in June, 2017, saying the technology...

There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced), but this article ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article exists in the Delete Quadrant -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 22 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. No real objection to someone putting in a redirect but consensus is this is a poor search term. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S9[edit]

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

Just another bus route, (fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTDIRECTORY,WP:NOTTIMETABLE. This kind of article is entirely pointless, since unless well maintained the data will be out of date & hence useless; anbody with a grain of sense would go to the company website if they wanted a timetable. TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either Redirect to Stagecoach Gold#S8, S9, 34 & NS8 - Wantage to Oxford or Merge to Stagecoach Gold bus route S8. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stagecoach Gold#S8, S9, 34 & NS8 - Wantage to Oxford - I considered boldly doing that when I saw this on NPP. If there's a clear consensus here, I may do so for the remaining articles on Stagecoach Gold bus routes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the two votes above me. There's nothing in the articles showing independent notability for any of these Stagecoach routes. Better off in a list and would support a bulk AfD/redirect for the remaining articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable bus route, Pointless redirecting as no one is going to search "Stagecoach Gold bus route S9", Having this as a redirect just sets the precedent that the rest of the bus routes can be created as redirects..... I know REDIRECTSARECHEAP and all that but this isn't cheap ... it's just pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There already is precedent for redirection, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 99. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of these articles, and whilst I do agree with some of the above comments, the Stagecoach Gold article is becoming far too cluttered. With more and more routes being added to the brand, the main article will continue to look more and more untidy. I created these articles with the aim of changing the Stagecoach Gold article sections to tables containing only basic information and then having standalone articles for each route which would contain additional information such as history etc. I admit that this specific route isn't notable, but you could then argue that most of the London buses routes that have their own articles are the same. There is a lot of information in the article that would not be suitable to cascade into the Stagecoach Gold article as the article is in need of cleanup and has been since April 2016. Commyguy (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most bus routes are non notable and this is no exception. The only references are primary sources from Stagecoach and some bus fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Non-notable.Charles (talk) 18:55, 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. Sandstein 23:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Aggarwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and I don't see if the subject has played a significant/major role in films listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider Salt. These types of fanpages are becoming more of a problem on WP. They're generally people that are "known" in some sense by a fanbase (like an obscure actress in this case), but that clearly fall short of our notability guidelines (like having only 1 local news article as a source). This article was recreated once and probably will be again. Agricola44 (talk) 14:26, 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 delete. Sandstein 23:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Got Trumped[edit]

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

Non notable vanity/promotional page by SPA/COI. minimal independent coverage, fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage, just more trumpcruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be a notable web video series. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 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 speedy keep Seriously? This is more than noteworthy of an article, don't be silly. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Bolshevik Party[edit]

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

Bogus information, part of sources are irreliable Abobobobo (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:27, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, clearly a notable organisation, plenty of WP:RS both in the article and online in English and Russian. Article was nominated for deletion by a single-edit WP:SPA on the vaguest rationale possible, and clearly WP:BEFORE bothering to discuss on its talk page and attempting to improve it. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has areas of improvement needed but clearly notable. Information should be verified based on Wikipedia policy. JimNemcovic (talk) 16:26, 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. Sandstein 23:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ICT University Foundation[edit]

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

Sources provided do not directly support the subject. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV and fail WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, was this speedy deleted, see here, then created again? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Just corporate puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Airlines destinations[edit]

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

This article, unreferenced since it was created in 2006, purports to describe the destinations of six unidentified airlines (FAA certificate holders) that operate(d) under the American Eagle logo. Without reliable references, the article is original research. Rhadow (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References that meet WP:N are easily found for these types of articles. The fact it's currently a poorly referenced article doesn't make it original research. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SportingFlyer. What the nom needs to understand is WP:N requires the existence of references, not if they're already placed in the article by the time a specific editor happens on it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where are these references that can easily be found? Could someone demonstrate that indeed these references exist? AA.com does not seem to provide this information, as it only indicates the operating airline, but not the airline brand. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you google "American Eagle" and or "Envoy" and the name of the destination, several news articles invariably come up. For instance, for showing at least former service to two destinations: [21] [22] SportingFlyer (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those both took me less than a minute to find, by the way. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And? How does help us source an article that is meant to comprehensively cover all of American Eagle's destinations? The article name is "American Eagle Airlines destinations" not "Some of American Eagle Airlines destinations". 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't supposed to be a copy of the destinations on an airline website, but rather a list of places an airline flies or has flown. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be difficult to understand: We need one or more reliable sources that show that the airline flies or has flown to the places in the list, and that the list is complete and comprehensive. In other words, how can we know that this article includes all American Eagle destinations? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the alternative, that the airline no longer flies there ... and I won't accept an assertion that, because a particular location is no longer on the subject's website, that it had and terminated service. Rhadow (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. No one is arguing that point. The information is available elsewhere anyways and needs to be in order to pass notability, such as newspaper articles or former route maps. Some of these articles are poorly referenced, but a poorly referenced article shouldn't be deleted because it's poorly referenced: a poorly referenced article should be deleted only if there are no references available to source it. In any case, a larger AfD/DRV/policy discussion about lists of destinations is currently ongoing, you know this, and picking one particular article to try the "original research" AfD debate on at this moment isn't helpful in the least, especially since reliable published sources exist, whether they be articles talking about the closing of a route or old maps or diagrams. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not fine. You claim that references are easily found, but fail to find any. This is also unrelated to the ongoing discussion on airline destination articles. This is a special situation we have here - an airline brand, not an operating airline. With List of Lufthansa/KLM/Emirates airlines there is no question about references, we just use the airline webpage/schedules. There is no such webpage or schedule for American Eagle, so you have to demonstrate that these references exist somewhere else. Please show us these "easily found references". I would be happy to change to keep if evidence is shown that this article can be properly sourced, now or at some undetermined point in the future. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 -- Thie issue is more fundamental than Eagle's peculiar circumstance. SportingFlyer is arguing for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to one created today. American Eagle destinations has a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same article today would fail review and never make it to the mainspace. The same is true for photography definitions, train stations, and a host of special interest articles. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Since this particular discussion started, Portland, ME and Lansing, MI have references. Pointe a Pitre has fallen into doubt. Rhadow (talk)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying anything other than this article should not be deleted, since numerous sources exist showing the article is notable. I added those two references in about three minutes, by the way. I'm not going to waste my time referencing an article in an AfD discussion. Finally, Pointe a Pitre is not in doubt - the airline flies or has flown there. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Airline served Fort-de-France in January 2018. It is not on the February 2018 map. If the standard for the Destination List series is to be serves or served without differentiation, fine. But that's not the way they are formatted. If it takes three minutes to update two destinations, then it will take two and a half hours a month to keep this one article up to date. Rhadow (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a logical flaw. You don't need to recreate the reference table every month to keep this information current. It's becoming increasingly clear you're AfDing an article on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, not WP:N grounds. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'n not a matter of disliking it. It is a matter of suggesting that it is a waste of time to maintain an article for which the bar has been set unreasonably high. Tell me please which airports American Eagle serves: Dulles or Reagan National ... or Bush Intercontinental or Hobby? These monthly changes of destination are not notable. No newspaper bothers to write that Fort-de-France was dropped from the schedule. It's simply not notable. It is travel trivia not suitable for an encyclopedia. Rhadow (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article was actually already posted in this thread: [23] SportingFlyer (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- putting aside the question of whether this can be referenced, this still falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. The article also would have to be updated constantly to maintain accuracy. Just because something can be referenced doesn't mean its worthy of being included.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rusf10: Can you please point to the portion of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL texts where airline destinations are excluded from the project? I read it over and over again and it says nothing about the topic.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If someone is planning a trip they can look on the airline's website to see where they travel, it is not of enecylopedic value. 2. WP:NOTDIR is probably the stronger of the two arguements: "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time." (emphasis mine) Yes, airline service is a product, being that almost all the destinations cannot be sourced in independent sources, it is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NOTTRAVEL, I don't understand how it applies. These lists show where an airline operates, not how the cities themselves are connected so they serve virtually no purpose in that regard. For "sales catalogue" there is no pricing attached. There certainly are independent, non review, sources out there for the majority of these routes, and that's something that can be worked on. To echo Jetstreamer below, deletion is not cleanup. Garretka (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
″Availability″ applies to hotel accomodation, aircraft seats, etc. I don't see airline destination articles including such information, which certainly belongs in Wikivoyage. Neither I see the prices of hotel rooms in hotel articles. Regarding ″prices and productd availabiliy″, they are offered at the corresponding websites, and these websites are included as a field both in airline and hotel infoboxes. Your interpretation of both WP:NOTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR eventually goes against the entire project. --Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says "pricing or availability information", it need not be both. Would either of you support articles such as List of products offered for sale by Walmart or List of products offered for sale by the Home Depot because this is the exact same thing.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the airline industry, availability means seats you can purchase, not the destinations you can reach. It seems to me WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTRAVEL is subject to different interpretations. And following your example, there should't be articles about mayonnaise or beverages just because they can be purchased at supermarkets.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Enough, already. Take this discussion to the DRV. This AfD reeks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Smartyllama (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The current DRV Adria Airways destinations [24] includes only members of the Star Alliance. American and American Eagle have nothing to do with Star Alliance. Separate matter. No FORUMSHOPPING here. Rhadow (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The current DRV will surely set precedent on all airline destination articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Close~~ Keep on this one. While I agree with the Flybe AfD, I would wait until the DRV concludes as this is "essentially the same issue in a different forum" (from WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Best to wait until conclusion of the DRV. No need to rush into this. Garretka (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find pretty unfair to keep AfDing destination articles while there's an ongoing discussion at DRV.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is not part of the DRV, WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not a valid point. Besides, the same people arguing that this is forum shopping are the same people insisting that each article must go to AfD before deleting (you can't have it both ways).--Rusf10 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my comment above regarding your claim and the potential relationship between the ongoing DRV and all airline destination articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:FORUMSHOPPING: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." The DRV is about whether consensus has been achieved on this broad topic. Once that is decided, then a path forward can be developed. My preference is to AfD individual articles based on notability, but that's a discussion for after the DRV. Garretka (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one or the articles under deletion review was AfDed again, you would have a point, but this is a different article. Like I said before, you want it both ways. Your preference is to AfD each article, but you don't want that done until a DRV involving different articles is completed.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV is the first of what could be many batch deletions per the initial VPP discussion and the ANI discussion. This article would get nominated sooner or later. Yes it's a different article, but this is "essentially the same issue". And yes that is correct. Because the current batch deletion has many quality lists contained within it. That DRV will likely end in a deletion or no consensus. Nominating more articles with "essentially the same issue" while there is an ongoing discussion that will have broader implications is again, unhelpful and will not help establish a consensus. Arguments made for and against deletion here will be the exact same as what is going on there. You can argue till the cows come home but this AfD is textbook Forum Shopping because it's essentially the same issue. Garretka (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, AfD is admittedly your preferred forum for this. You're saying this is forum shopping, but at the same time saying that it actually belongs in this forum. However, what you are actually arguing for is a delay, which makes no sense. The outcome of the DRV doesn't automatically keep or delete this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've requested this article be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Not only does the nominator ask it be AfD'd on original research grounds, the DRV addresses whether these articles violate both of these. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unhelpful in establishing consensus on all 444 of these pages when there is a discussion that may not involve this page in particular, but involves the subject and will establish a consensus on these pages moving forward. The outcome of the DRV will clear up where the community stands on these articles and again, will create a path forward for the remainder of these articles. Garretka (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's basic reasoning: If the outcome of the DRV is to endorse the AfD close this paves the way for all airline destination articles to be deleted. On the contrary, if the outcome is to overturn the decision, why all these articles wouldn't be kept?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if the outcome of the DRV is endorse, the three of you would allow this article to be automatically deleted? I doubt it. Likewise, if the outcome is overturn, you cannot argue that this page needs to be kept simply because the other ones were. The outcome of the DRV doesn't determine what happens here.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the DRV is endorse it will make it easier to batch AfD articles, (I would still argue based on the notability of the subject at hand, either for or against). If the DRV overturns then it will result in further discussion as to the true meaning of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Both are subject to wide interpretations. This AfD is premature. Garretka (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion at DRV was closed as ″overturn″ [25]. I suggest to close this discussion too per WP:SNOW.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coment -- The matter at issue in the DRV was whether destination article should exist at all. The matter at issue here is whether an article should remain when five of its purported six subjects are unreferenced, and therefore are not verified. The DRV is not approval of badly referenced articles. No snow here. Rhadow (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no snow here. In fact, to suggest that there is, is unconscionable, there are three keeps and three deletes right now. Like I said before, the result of the DRV involving other articles does not impact the result here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your main arguments at the DRV discussion were WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTRAVEL. These two arguments were used for the original discussion at VP. It should be more than clear that these arguments are now void in view of the outcome of the DRV.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRV doesn't determine policy, its simply a place to review if a discussion was closed with the correct procedure. I don't know how you read the DRV outcome and came to the conclusion that WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTRAVEL cannot apply to this particular article.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the DRV close?
"The primary issue here was that the close basically said, Policy was already established at a Village Pump / Policy discussion, and that trumps the consensus of the people discussing the issue here at AfD. That concept was soundly rejected in this review."

WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR were the policies discussed at VPP and soundly rejected in the AfD. If that doesn't apply across the board to all these articles then I must be missing something. Garretka (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just in case it wasn't clear from my earlier comment, this is flagrant fotum shopping. Consensus is that these articles are notable. The DRV made that abundantly clear. It also made it clear that the reasoning stated in nomination does not apply to this kind of article, nor does the VPP discussion override conensus. Finally, AFD is not cleanup. Enough already. Smartyllama (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the consensus of earlier discussions especially the DRV is clear that these articles are justified, and this one is as much justified as the others. I'm not going to repeat the arguments, but essentially this is appropriate content for an encyclopedia such as WP. The DRV close is the current general consensus. This was not at least initially my own personal view on what we ought to be doing, but my opinion is now different: arguments in the prior discussions have convinced me. But whether or not they would have convinced me, I respect the general idea that we to some extent should defer to those who want to include certain general classes of content, in the understanding they will treat our own similarly. The principle of a joint project is to tolerate each other. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That the article should exist is not in question. It still needs references for Compass and Mesa. That the concept of the article was approved by DRV does not excuse it from WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not cleanup. If the article should exist, it should be kept at AfD and citations should be added. That's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 23 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 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspiring Minds[edit]

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

A promotional artcle for a non notable company. Fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. All references are primary sources. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company has received significant coverage in third party sources and it meets WP:NORG. Content was likely written by an undisclosed COI editor and needs to be toned down to maintain a neutral tone however. Cait.123 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please provide some instances where the coverage is not sourced to the company itself (like interviews or viewpoints form Company officials). A WP:BEFORE could not find anything. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Typical spam/PR sourcing.Nothing semblant to independent coverage.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP and in general promotional 'cruft. Nothing close to meeting notability guidelines for corporations. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and above, fails WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 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 Gordon Food Service. There are some arguments for a merge, but it doesn't sound like there's actually anything to merge, so that sounds like a redirect to me. The history will still be there, so if anybody wants to salvage anything to merge, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GFS Canada[edit]

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

This prose is close to unreadable. In normal cases, could argue that the prose is worth fixing as the subject is worth keeping, but this article makes no useful distinction between GFS Canada and Gordon Food Service--and neither does GFS, if its website is any guide. So existing Gordon Food Service article should suffice. Doprendek (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 01:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gordon Food Service -- One article only ... and less promo language in any case. Rhadow (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd normally agree, but... can you actually find anything worth merging from here? I couldn't. Doprendek (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, the title. Rhadow (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge can't find references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 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 delete. Sandstein 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaragodvartha[edit]

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

Kasaragodvartha is not a notable news portal. Raheempunnad (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable publication. Fails WP:NMEDIA. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 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 List of Playboy Playmates of 2000. No opposition to a redirect but apparently no reason to keep the history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerissa Fare[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet either WP:BASIC or WP:PORNBIO criteria; no in-depth coverage found, only a brief appearance in the news for being a witness at a murder trial, along with the resulting sensationalistic "true crime" coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NMODEL & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a biogrpahy of a living person that has zero, and I mean 0, reliable sources. It should not be allowed to stand at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG, best left to Playboy wikia Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2000, per well-established consensus practice. This should have been done directly; there was no need to bring this to AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of articles that lack reliable sources – since when is weeklypigs.com considered reliable for biographical info? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That point was raised before, and the consensus (which I'm not fond of, and didn't support) was that the source accurately repeated the information given in the magazine itself. If I remember right, somebody even spot-checked it. It's like IMDB -- generally not acceptable as a source, but accepted for noncontroversial replication of information published elsewhere, like standard cast lists, but hard to find stable online citations for. (It also prevented people from linking to copyvio pages hosting centerfold and "Playmate Data Sheet" pages). If you want to change the cites to the actual magazine pages, be my guest -- I have better things to do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:31, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jatra: Hyalagaad Re Tyalagaad[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM the only source a part from IMDB (not a RS for notability) was a passing mention of another film that came out in 1997 but had the same title. Nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 23:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Younjosh[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. None of the sources support notability. 1 is a user generated content social media site, 2 is a whats on post that just mentions that he palyed a set in a bar in Atlanta, 3 is user generated content, 4 is an ad for an event 5 is also an ad for an event, 6 is his linkedin page, and 7 ...I don't know how to describe this poorly written source but it most definately doesn't look reliable Dom from Paris (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 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. Sandstein 23:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Benincasa[edit]

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

Article does not clearly establish notability -- minor baseball prospect who has not been active in the sport for close to two years. Sourcing is weak and article is largely a compendium of trivia. Article has been proposed for merger into Washington Nationals minor league players for more than six months without action; it is a poor fit for said article because of the subject's inactivity and uncertain contract status. Kudzu1 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above. Merge discussions rarely go anywhere, I probably should've merged it myself instead of tagging it. There's no benefit to the project in keeping this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:37, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 23:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lior Rosner[edit]

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

Not finding much independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP with no sources. scope_creep (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he satisfies the requirement of WP:MUSICBIO, section 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.". He composed the Ellen Degeneres show, which is verified on the IMDB page Cait.123 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB is not a reliable source. Edwardx (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB is notoriously unreliable and and is not WP:RS. Anybody can walk and write anything. scope_creep (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this source [[26]] affirms the Ellen score info, and that he composed the closing credits theme for the Tom Cruise film Valkyrie. Some other minor coverage here [[27]]. It turns out that he also helped with the theme for the current Will and Grace reboot [[28]], with his musical writing partner, who is cast member Sean Haye's husband. [[29]] He also released an album and performs with the Kaleidoscope Chamber Orchestra. [[30]] I think there's just enough there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said this was created by a WP:SPA, but if you look at the editor's history you'll see over 1,000 subsequent edits. This article was created almost 10 years ago. Something's not right. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:10, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Murray Hoag[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. Also possible ~~WP:HOAX~~ unintentional creation of a composite person consisting of two (edit - or more) unrelated people.
Subject has a one paragraph mention in one book, simply noting his promotion. He has a relatively incidental mention in a second book. A third book contains, literally, one sentence (and this may not even be about the same Murray Hoag). A BEFORE fails to find sufficient additional references to sustain this as a standalone article. In "further reading" there are several paper letters mentioned which, I guess, the article's author must have in his/her possession, however, emails, message board comments, and postal letters don't generally held establish notability or meet WP:RS standards. We don't even have his first name or DOB.
It also invokes a reference [31] to a completely different person named Hoag that doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. (I'm also not entirely convinced the man in Iowa who raises Shetland ponies isn't even a third different person, possibly a son.) Ergo, this may also qualify for deletion under WP:HOAX as a composite character of several different people and not a single biological person. Chetsford (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of identity of individual[edit]

Question Are you discounting the entire Georgia Historical Quarterly article? That's not multiple RSs in and of itself, but it looks like a very good start. Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination. LadyofShalott 01:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am. After reading the article it's about Hettie Sabattie, a teacher at an African-American school, and analyzes her through the context of Hoag's letters as that was the side of the correspondence preserved. There are three short sentences of biographical information on Hoag in the 15 page article and the article is really about Sabattie. Hettie Sabattie would certainly pass GNG, but Hoag - unfortunately - does not.

"Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination." None of the sources connect the Murray Hoag who raised ponies in Iowa in the 1890s with the Murray Hoag who fought in the American Civil War. If we can find one source that bridged the gap that would resolve my concerns about this being a composite character, however, we don't currently seem to have that. (To clarify, I'm not saying this is an intentional hoax, however.) Chetsford (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised that those are different people. To me hoax implies malice. Though you say that is not what you mean, I would use an entirely different term for an error than deliberate mistruth. LadyofShalott 01:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search [32], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people. I'm certain the Quaker connection is yet a third person in this composite character, however, I can't confirm that with 100% veracity yet through RS; will update as soon as I have. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was a poor choice of words as I didn't mean to imply intent. I've struck "hoax" accordingly. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reconsideration of that point. LadyofShalott 01:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your findings about the two different men, I have gone ahead and removed the part about the pony breeder from the article. LadyofShalott 02:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LadyofShalott! I've also added a "not in citation" tag to the part about the Quakers. Chetsford (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see; I'm just looking at that now! LadyofShalott 02:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... And I concur. LadyofShalott 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a Quaker serving as an infantry officer in the Civil War would probably - by itself - pass GNG. I'm not sure we have any examples of that happening. Actually, not to add to the confusion, but it appears there may be a fourth person composited into this article. It appears there two were J. Murray Hoags at the Freedman's Bureau; I'm just working to verify that point with RS as well, and will update again, shortly. (Though it looks like the composite character is being introduced into new articles [33], so I may have my thumb in the proverbial dyke on this one.) Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one person to me. Served in the New York artillery and then captained 4th colored. Is such a tranfer not possible? If there were two J.M. Hoag's one may habe died in 1864 and been buried at Andersonville.

Why can't the J. Murray Hoag who survived the war have served in various roles in the Freedmen's Bureau and then retired to photography and / or pony raising in the Midwest with his family? Regardless, the officer role commanding colored troops and then leading Freedmen Bureau activities in Savannah area and perhaps elsewhere are certainly notable. Saving Savannah has pages and pages indexed to this dude. Plus all the historical letters and other coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, the fact that you, as the article's author, are having to ask these questions - that this "dude" [sic] has so little notability we're not even sure of these basic biographical details - probably demonstrates this is an appropriate article for deletion. Second, aside from the fact that transferring from a New York artillery regiment to a Maryland infantry regiment (the 4th Colored Infantry) would have been highly unusual, there's also the fact the Maryland militia roster shows him serving in it 1863-1867 [34], the same time period the other Hoag was serving in New York. Third, as previously noted, he was not a Quaker minister. (In general, Quaker ministers didn't serve as combat infantry officers during the Civil War but - more specifically - this one specifically didn't as demonstrated by the source.) As previously explained, this is not an article on a real person, it is a composite character of between two to four different people who share the very common surname "Hoag". WP biographies, as a general rule, need to be about real people. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising at all. It's a Quaker family so while anti-slavery and Republican sentiments ran strong, military service was somewhat controversial, especially for a family of Quaker ministers. But you seem very confused. This individual was never as far as I can tell a minister. But if you want a connection between the small town in Iowa and his war service here you go. Joseph Hoag's grandson and Lindley Murray Hoag's son. For some reason he was buried as Joseph Lindley Hoag instead of Joseph Murray Hoag, I'm not sure why. Perhaps to honor his father? Did you know his father's brother, Murray Hoag, died very young? Yes, It's all a bit confusing because of the Quaker prophet names running in the family. But all it took was a bit of time to sort it all out. It's the same dude. I'm sure your apology will be forthcoming. And as far as the links you've put up I can't find anything at all relevant in them. In contrast I've established exactly who this guy was an who his family were. The notice of his mustering out is online as his appointment to Freedmen's bureau on the front page of a contemporary newspaper account. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does that prove? The J. Murray Hoag of New York, later of Iowa, belonged to the Grand Army of the Republic. I'm sure he did, since he was a veteran. I'm sure the other Murray Hoag - the subject of this article from Maryland - did as well. I'm sorry you're upset but I don't really know how better to explain this to you: this article is a composite character of two to four different people. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Chetsford, seems like a composite of multiple people, serving both in New York and Maryland doesn't make any sense. This is a mess, without even dealing with the question of notability, the article cannot be kept. In order to have an article, we need sources that make it clear who the person was and where they lived.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the officer Hoag mustered out with. He served in an Ohio unit and then was an officer for the 128th colored troop organized in South Carolina. So obvioualy colored troop officers coild be drawn from areas that weren't where the colored troops, freedmen, were from (including areas in the South). Despite Chetsford claims he hasn't shown any evidence there are different people in this article. What are the birth and death dates of these supposed people? Other info loke graves or parents? FloridaArmy (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided doesn't mention the name "Hoag" anywhere in it. What you are doing is analyzing historical texts to find connections that would support a conclusion, which is fine if you're writing a book but on WP is WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said a soldier serving from one state and then being an officer of colored troops from another didn't make any sense. I was showing you're wrong. There is no OR involved. Lots of sources covering his military service and family history. As well as his later career as a druggist and pony breeder in Iowa. Sources on his father and grandfather as well discussing Lindley's move to Iowa. It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S." OK, noted. Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment Yuck. I've tried to clean up the article. The connecting tissue comes from his GAR record ("Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic Membership Records, 1861-1949," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q23N-SCTS : 2 June 2016), J Murray Hoag, 1861-1949; citing Iowa, United States, Military Service, State Historical Department, Des Moines; FHL microfilm 1,487,403.). There are two obits in the current article, which do a bit of the work, as well. There is also a picture. A bag of Trouts to FloridaArmy, you can't just make things up and add random stuff and expect editors to understand and clean up your mess. Yes, I agree this individual is suitable for the encyclopedia, but it is important make sure your work is verifiable and as correct as possible - mistakes are ok but not guessing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he wasn't from a family of famous Quaker ministers [35] Smmurphy and went by the alias Lindley Murray Hoag? Or was he? Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he was, I don't see it as a notable part of his life. I removed that stuff from the article, it didn't seem clear that it belonged. This article is clearly meant to be about a J. Murray Hoag who was a member of the Freedmen's Bureau. The only such person was John Murray Hoag (1843-1917). Alternative forms of his name include John M. Hoag and J. Murrah Hoag. Lindley Murray Hoag (1808-1880) may be a relative, but I don't see how. Ancestry.com family trees suggest John was the son of Hiram Cook Hoag and Sally Ann Wyman and that Hiram was the son of a Benjamin Jr, none of whom match the Quaker Joseph Hoag (1762-1846) linked to in an earlier version of this page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Here's a military career summary page. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to your newest source, he was 19 in 1863, making his DOB 1847. You've previously claimed he went by the alias Lindley Hoag and was from a family of famous Quakers [36]. In that version you cited a source [37] showing a DOB of 1808. Can you clarify? Chetsford (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 years old comes, I think, from his enlistment record. That same civilwardata page does give a DOB of 1843, though, matching his tombstone and GAR records. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So was he born in 1843, 1837, or 1808? Was his name J. Murray or J. Lindley? Are we using RS or are we using Findagrave and ancestry.com? Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to use ancestry.com. The question was if John (1843-1917) was related to any Quakers. I don't know where FloridaArmy got that from, but it isn't in any sources I see on the current or any past versions of the page. Thus, I checked ancestry to see if there was anything that might be in family history or something from which such a connection could be made. I didn't find it there either. I don't know why FloridaArmy made that connection. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy then who is this dead person? FloridaArmy (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to question those sources. I know we don't consider findagrave reliable and I'm not sure about civilwardata.com--Rusf10 (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Joseph Lindley Hoag (1834-1900) is. Iowa Falls, where he is buried, is a long way from Maquoketa, Los Angeles, or Arlington, though. Also, the civilwardata information includes birth and death dates which match those currently in the article and which are not 1834 and 1900 respectively. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another person named Hoag. It's a fairly common name which may be the source of your frustration when you created the composite article that merged the Quaker minister Hoag and the Civil War officer Hoag. That's one reason we try to discourage OR. Otherwise our article on John Jones might claim he was a championship water polo player, instead of John Jones. Chetsford (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lindley Murray also here. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is this an article about Joseph Lindley Hoag, born 1834 in New Hampshire; Joseph Lindley Murray born 1808 to a Quaker family; or J. Murray Hoag born 1843 who served in the Army in Maryland? We've gone through a few different versions so I just want to make sure I know which we're currently on. Chetsford (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is the person FloridaArmy intended to write about was the person in the Freedmen's Bureau, John (1843-1917). Also, here is John's (1843-1917) grave: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/49204946/john-murray-hoag. 07:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Smmurphy^(Talk)

Hmmm. But he just - above - left a cryptic note about "Joseph Lindley Hoag" born in 1837 in New Hampshire. I think that may have to do with what he previously included in the article that Hoag was from a family of famous Quakers and used the alias Lindley and was born in 1808 (which would mean he was a championship breeder of Shetland Ponies as a 111 year old man in Iowa). Also, we should probably avoid using Find-A-Grave to source articles as per Rusf10's comment. Chetsford (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I first found Hoag's grave using the find a grave thing-y at the arlington national cemetery website, but that doesn't create a url, so to provide a link I looked for it on find-a-grave. We do, in some instances, consider a grave stone to be a useful primary source. I don't care for the practice but if we really wanted, we could use it here to provide a name for his wife (Caroline). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So was Caroline Hoag's (b 1808), Hoag's (b 1837), or Hoag's (b 1843) wife? Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article, John (1843-1917) married a Belden (happens to be sister of Scott Belden, for whom Belden, Nebraska is named). John's (1843-1917) tomb also has the name of Caroline Belden Hoag. Caroline is the wife of the John who is the sunject of this article, John (1843-1917). Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's according to findagrave.com? Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of this comment repeats my earlier comment, but: John (1843-1917) is buried at Arlington National Cemetery according to his obituary and his GAR record (both linked in the article). You can find an image of his grave on the Arlington National Cemetery website, there is only one John Hoag who died in 1917 when you search for it. The image is the same as the image at findagrave. Looking at the image (the grave is a primary source, if we believe the image is accurate, we can consider it a primary source), John (1843-1917) was buried with a person named Caroline Belden Hoag (1838-1927). The article currently says that John (1843-1917) married a sister to Scott Belden, citing a newspaper article. From this, I conclude that John (1843-1917) was married to a woman named Caroline. I don't think this belongs in the article as while I believe my logic is sound, I don't think it is interesting enough that we should IAR NOR just to add her first name to the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how the breeder and colored unit commander could be the same person. According to Chetsford " I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search [2], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people." He seemed so sure of himself!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: I think you have no right to be smug here. Probably none of us do, but you created the mess. Just because I tried to clean it up doesn't mean that Chetsford wasn't trying to clean it up as well. I think you should apologize and strike your comment. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears I was correct, it was a composite article of J. Murray Hoag (born 1843) and the Quaker John Lindley Hoag (born 1808) [38]. Now that's settled and Smmurphy has de-composited it by removing the references to separate person J.L. Hoag, we should move forward with a discussion about its suitability under WP:NSOLDIER. I'm not seeing he meets any of the eight criteria, and the sources contain such incidental mentions that they don't pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy is clearly the hero here, but I am troubled that Chetsford keeps putting out misleading information. Joseph Lindley Hoag (born 1834 and died 1900 OR 1902 depending on source) and John Murray Hoag (born 1843 died 1917) are the people we are differentiating. The sources on the Captain of the colored unit and Freedmen Bureau are abundant. Saving Savannah index shows the book is full of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? You are the one who created a semi-fictional, composite biography by blending in the life history of an entirely different person to create an article that contained bits and pieces of two different people [39] and - when challenged - then claimed this individual must have been buried under an alias [40]. But yes, Smmurphy is owed thanks for undoing that. If you'd like, you can even thank me for also undoing that when you attempted it again at this other article [41]. Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is hard for other editors to read and am going to format this a bit; add a discussion about identity of individual sub-section head and then a discussion about suitability for encyclopedia subsection head so that this is all easier to read. I'm striking my earlier vote into a !comment and writing a new !vote in the new subsection (still keep but with clearer rational) @Rusf10: if you think this would be a good idea, could you move you !vote to the new subsection? @Chetsford: if you think this would be a good idea, feel free to restate your nomination based on the current article either at the very top or the top of the new discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia section. If doing so is obviously wrong to someone, feel free to remove my formatting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are people getting worked up about editor errors on an article about a 19th C person? The subject is so old that it errors could be coming from a hundred directions.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing if errors are introduced by relying on sources presumed to be reliable. It's another thing if they are introduced by sloppy original research. --Lambiam 19:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia[edit]

Keep - Hoag's role in the civil war received a mention for gallantry, which is provided in numerous listings of such mentions, including Williams 2012. During the war, there were few medals for gallantry other than the Medal of Honor (I don't think he would qualify for the Butler Medal, for instance). His role in the Freedmen's Bureau in Georgia is given mention, generally passing, in numerous books, including Cimbala 1997, Jones 2009, and Harris and Berry 2014. He is a central character in Cimbala 1997, with mentions on 8 pages in the text and 10 more in the notes. His relationship with black teachers is analysed in Whittington 1991. After leaving the bureau, he moved to Iowa where he became one of the most prominent Shetland pony breeders in the country, operating what was for a time the largest Shetland pony ranch in the country and being president of the main US Shetland pony association. Most of the 308 newspapers.com results for a search for '"J M Hoag" OR "J Murray Hoag"' during his lifetime are really about him and most of those are about his farm career (https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22j+m+hoag%22+OR+%22j+murray+hoag%22&dr_year=1860-1917). Between the Spanish-American War and World War I, he was an army recruiter in Buffalo, which resulted in his promotion to major and in numerous other mentions in newspapers. When he died, he had obituaries in minor Iowa and New York newspapers that I can find. His GAR record provides a clear thread so that connecting these different phases of his life is not OR. The article has a variety of sources, so I think it passes WP:V, and is neutrally written, passing WP:NPOV. I would suggest that Whittington 1991 and Cimbala 1997 go a long ways towards GNG, with his obituaries contributing to that case as well. His work in Shetland pony breeding in America has a weak claim to ANYBIO#2. He doesn't quite meat SOLDIER, but almost meets #1 and #2 as being mentioned for gallantry was the second highest way of being honored for valor at the time and holding the rank of Major is a significant degree of promotion for someone who enlisted as a private. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is sufficient information above and in the article and citations here to convince me that this soldier, politician in the Freedmen's Bureau, and important pony breeder should be kept in Wikipedia.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the identity of Hoag has been sorted out, the sources demonstrate notabilty per WP:BASIC particularly with regard to his work at the Freedmen's Bureau. Nice improvements. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient information to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately Seeking Brandi[edit]

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

A short-lived Nike advertising short? I'm not seeing any lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick search of this article brings up... Wikipedia and mirror sites. The references are to the production company and the page of the lead actress. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 18:36, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RDUINOScope[edit]

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

The only significant sources I could find about this software project was from Hackaday, the rest are mostly forum posts or website profiles. In addition, the article has a promotional tone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to provie arguments against Deletion of this article:

It is written by the inventor, but this only contributes to the facts! HACKADAY is a reliable source, but additionally the project won 3 semifinals! This obviously asserts the notabiliity! Additionally, this is the FIRST Arduino based, Free and Stand-Alone Telescope controller! No other in the world.

Promotional tone... I'm not sure I understand. It is a free Software and Hardware! Do you consider that the 3rd party development "pre-built" version does not need to be included ?

Additional Sources:
https://hackaday.com/2017/07/03/best-product-entry-telescope-control-with-rduinoscope/ https://hackaday.com/2017/04/11/keep-an-eye-on-the-sky-with-rduinoscope/ unsigned writing by user:DEsko 76

The promotional tone, and how-to aspects of the article can be easily edited off, so they are not reasons for deletion. However I can confirm that it only seems to be covered by blogs, social networking sites, and hackaday. I think the topic shoul wait for an appearance in an Astronomy magazine, or a description in a journal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand! As this is Open Source project, it is not funded and as such is hard to receive a review in Astronomy magazines. However there is one Astronomy magazine - "Sky & Telescope" who agree to post an article on their website, which should happen in the next few weeks (we have completed the article editing and now waiting for the publishing).

Should I go back and create this Wikipedia page after it is published ? I'm affraid that this project will not gain publicity very fast, but step-by-step we got to 300+ followers and gaining some media attention.

Article you wrote about your product is not "independent reliable source" for Wikipedia". You need third party coverage (eg. review in such magazine by staff member), not paid adverts. Pavlor (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the "pre-built"version and hope it does not sound promotional. In addition I hope to have an article on "Sky&Telescope" magazine's website next week, as it was initially scheduled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new source of information from Adafruit : https://blog.adafruit.com/2017/07/18/how-to-make-astronomy-even-better-with-arduino-citizenscience/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete This appears to be pure WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote products. This has not received any meaningful coverage. Without WP:RS citations, this simply does not belong. Please note that the single reference you just added does not qualify - it is a blog, and thus not a reliable source. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yesterday Sky&Telescope Magazine posted an article on their website in the STARGAZING corner. Please, let me know if this reference is a meaningful and adds value to the article ? - http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/stargazers-corner/rduinoscope-boiana-diy-go-to-unit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note that this article is not about PRODUCT, but about an Open Source Project... The same as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FarmBot or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarium_(software) and as you can see they are counting mainly on BLOG posts.

Additionally If you try searchig for "Free Telescope Controller", rDUINOScope is the 3rd, 4th result. It has a Website and Facebook page... It is NOT a WP:PROMO! I don't need to promote this project as there is no financial benefit, not this is a product at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone assess whether the new source passes the article over the bar?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sky and Telescope is a reliable source in general, but the article rDUINOScope Boiana: DIY Go To Unit was written by the creator of rDUINOScope Boiana, so this is not an independent third party source. I don't see any independent reliable sources for this device. I'm not convinced that Hackaday is a reliable source. Without independent reliable sources according to WP:RS and WP:GNG, the article fails notability guidelines. Perhaps if and when the device garners in-depth coverage in multiple independent reviews, this could be revisited. It's a cool project. But right now, there just aren't the independent RS to support an article. Hence delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:26, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derry Millar[edit]

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

Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada is not sufficient for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources point back to the Law Society, including the fact that they gave him an honorary LLD degree for his work. All in all, no sources demonstrate any kind of notability outside of LSUC.104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lawyers, even if they hold an executive position with their jurisdictionally-relevant law society, are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because their existence can technically be verified in primary sources like the websites of their own law firm and the law society itself — like anybody else, they still need to be reliably sourceable as the subject of media coverage in unaffiliated sources, but there's none of that here. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

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

While most of the songs do not satisfy WP:NSONG, the article itself is WP:INDISCRIMINATE having no encyclopedic value. MT Train^Discuss 07:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

—MT Train^Discuss 07:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Majority of the songs do not pass WP:NSONG and lists with just a few (mostly non-notable) entries do not meet the requirements of WP:NLIST. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST is about lists of people. The relevant guideline for this discussion is WP:LISTN. Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, unless rationale can be provided why Indian cities are less worthy of a category than the other 37 similar lists in the Category:Lists of songs about a city. FWIW, I'd much rather see a referenced list than a category based on the mention of a city's name, let's be honest, this kind of list is hardly encyclopedic... --Richhoncho (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to merge them to here:List of songs about cities. Do we really need an article for songs about every city in the world when some cities barely have any (particularly notable songs)? Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I dont understand how such broad rational can be used for what seems like all the cities in South Asia or at least only cities in South Asia. The similar list for Atlanta has no source and List of songs about Amsterdam has one source. Yet I didn't see any of them being nominated for deletion in the past. The absence of articles on some songs does not necessarily mean that they are not notable but simply articles have not yet been created and we do know that there is a disparity in Wikipedia. Only nominating lists of cities in South Asia only furthers systemic bias.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the nominator is being discriminiator or somehow biased on keeping articles about Indian cities, as some editors suggested. There are similar lists about american or australian cities as well. Then why isn't he nominating all those as well here? And, If these have no encyclopedic value I suspect there is no article. At least delete all the other articles appearing in Lists of songs, if you are neutral. Makhamakhi (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked as to whether the songs on those other cities are notable, but if found not to be, in time I'll surely nominate those as well. There's no encyclopedic value in such poorly referenced articles which don't suffice notability. MT Train^Discuss 16:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per the results of e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about cities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about California and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Oklahoma. There was also a discussion in 2007 about multiple lists which resulted in no consensus, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Melbourne.

Per WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational ... purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". IMO, lists of songs about places serve that purpose. The lists may need pruning so that they only include songs specifically about each city, and the sourcing could be improved, but neither is a reason for deletion.

FWIW, I've just added a general reference from Times of India to List of songs about Delhi which is specifically about songs about Delhi.

I'm surprised that this nomination includes the 10 lists which relate to the Indian Subcontinent and excludes the 37 which relate to the Americas, Australia and Europe. See Category:Lists of songs about a city. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The ten lists under discussion were all created recently and by a single editor, Makhamakhi, who exhibited a staggering lack of understanding of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi for a discussion of whether to nuke the nearly 500 articles they created in the past six weeks). The cities for which they created song lists happen to all be in South Asia. I take the nominator's word that the nominations are based on the lists failing to meeting policies and guidelines rather than on any imagined bias against South Asia, and ask other participants to WP:AGF in that regard. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had this user under my watch for months, along with his/her sock— Ratsama (talk · contribs). All these articles can still be considered under CSD G5 if they are kept. MT Train^Discuss 15:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all--Per nominator.LISTCRUFT by a near-incompetent user.And, I will be genuinely interested if the keep !voters can churn out something other than OSE and misplaced claims of geo-bias.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but not because of those are South Asian cities but because of those articles doesn't satisfy WP:NSONG. --আফতাব (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG is irrelevant to lists. It only applies to individual songs, not to list articles. See WP:LISTN. Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.

I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and tag for proper sourcing. I note not only that we have Category:Lists of songs about a city, but that List of songs about London has been tagged for sourcing since 2010, List of songs about Boston since 2011, which makes this AfD look a tad POINTy. India has a lively press and a dynamic music industry, which makes me suspect that these articles could be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all . I think the general view at WP has become that we will keep lists suh as this , regardless of our own personal interests. My own general view is that lists for minor content is a good way of discouraging articles on such content, and is a reasonable compromise in such matters. Compromise is, after all, the only way we can work together. I apply it equally to the fields in which I am interested in, and to the ones in which I have no interest whatsoever. This is not my private WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any songs that are notable (i.e. have articles), delete all others. If there are no notable songs left, delete the list. This seems easier than the discussion is making it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LISTN says, Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also easy to resolve. If the group of items being listed itself is not notable, the WP:LISTN threshold is not met. In other words, unless there is media coverage that substantiates that songs about a certain city are notable in the first place, my cull criteria makes the most sense. If a source can be found that states songs about a certain city have particular significance in general, then we could add a preface, referencing the source in question, and then include all the non-notable songs we want, per WP:LISTN. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although realistically, there will likely be no lists that survive this threshold, but that's the way it should be then. Non-notable songs in non-notable categories don't deserve an article. Taken to the extreme, I could upload to YouTube a video of me singing into my iPhone about my town and then add an article, sourced with the YouTube link, which we don't want. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Hildebrand[edit]

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

Draft:David Hildebrand (politician) already declined at AfC by myself and DGG. Draft creator unhappy with the decision based on the conversation on my talk page. Bottom line is the subject of the article is only a candidate and is already listed on the election page in Wikipedia. Unless he wins or can be found to be notable for something else, he fails WP:BIO. CNMall41 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NPOL and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG. Ahead of an election nine months from now, this looks like a promotional effort. I think WP:BLP1E applies, even if there was more coverage about his quixotic run. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --

The subject of the article meets Number 3 of WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.

As stated in WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here, the subject has been covered in multiple printed newspapers and online sources, some of which are cited in the article. Coverage is ongoing, becoming more significant daily.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Here, the sources cited are major news sources, online blogs, and video news programs. There are plenty of them secondary sources, ranging in reliability.

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Here, though the article is just a stub. But that does not mean it is not notable. There is more content to be written and more sources available.

I don't know what standards you're using, but the wikipedia standards clearly show you are incorrect in your judgment, and I ask you to fix yourself.

Jon Ivy (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No candidate in any election ever fails to be the subject of some coverage in the context of the election campaign itself — so that falls under run of the mill, and is not coverage that can be used to make a candidate pass GNG just because some media coverage exists. If the mere existence of campaign-specific coverage were enough in and of itself to get over GNG, then every candidate in any election would always get over GNG. But our job is to maintain articles about holders of office, not everybody who ever just ran for one — we have an established consensus that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates. To make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you must show one of three things: (1) he's the winner of the Senate election in November, (2) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, or (3) his candidacy is getting so much more coverage than most other candidacies are also getting that you could credibly claim his candidacy had already made him nationally famous (the Christine O'Donnell exception.) Yes, if he actually manages to defeat Dianne Feinstein in the primary, then in all likelihood the coverage of him will expand enough to pass that last condition — but simply being able to show four pieces of campaign-related coverage is not evidence that a candidate has already cleared our notability standards, because every candidate in any election could always show four pieces of campaign-related coverage, and he's also not a special case just because he might defeat Dianne Feinstein in a primary that hasn't happened yet, because WP:CRYSTAL also applies. If you could show something like Christine O'Donnell's 168 footnoted references, then his candidacy could be considered a special case — but just four doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, candidates can be covered in Wikipedia if they are candidate, but that doesn't mean they qualify for their own page. In this case, he is already listed as a candidate in the United States Senate election in California, 2018 page. However, he would not qualify for his own page based on the reasons given above by Bearcat. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I do say that it seems that your established consensus seems to be waning: Danny_Tarkanian Scott Ashjian John Chachas Wayne_Allyn_Root Larry_Elder Ron Unz... I could spend all day finding articles about people who are only on wikipedia because of their runs for office, and unlike with our subject here, written about mainly by themselves. You seem to be doing a few things:

1) Treating all races the same, comparing a race for city council, or representative from Delaware, in the same context as a U.S. Senate race in California.

Even if you come to the same conclusion, you are making an error if you're not using different criteria for one office from the other.

2) Treating sources such as Fox News as more reliable than the Sacramento Bee.

Just look at the 168 footnotes you're citing for Christine O'Donnell. If you're valuing quantity over quality, there are several dozen blogposts and videos featuring our subject here I could include.

3) Pronouncing a rule of general applicability but only applying it in select cases.

Just because "every" candidate will get some news coverage, does not mean that the news coverage they get should be discounted. If the general rule is that media coverage is a sign of notability, then media coverage is a sign of notability. Applying it differently to one category of people over another is ridiculous. All serial killers will get some media coverage, would you say that their media coverage doesn't count? Rather, the rule should be to judge the reliability of the sources and how much they directly are reporting on the subject - no discount should be given to campaign coverage and the reporting should not be analyzed differently. AND, since your supposed *consensus* to the contrary is being arbitrarily applied depending on the editor and the moment, I don't think it's a rule with much staying power.

Again, thanks for your response. All editors should be required to give the standard at which they are judging deletion. Jon Ivy (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonivy: Your arguments are faulty and I just want you to understand that this isn't a rigged competition. First, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Pointing to other deficient articles isn't a valid argument; it would result in a race to the bottom with our content getting worse due to declining standards. Second, it appears the failed candidates you listed pass WP:GNG. This subject does not. Per WP:NPOL, Wikipedia does not have different criteria for different elections. This is a global encyclopedia and it would be impossible to suss those gradations out. Thirdly, per WP:RS, we don't have a sliding rule on sources. Consensus determines if a source is usable and after that, it's a numbers game. WP:SPS disallows blogs. Many editors discount coverage from local news sources, especially where the subjects are of purely local interest and are otherwise run of the mill. I think you also need to read WP:BIO1E. The consensus determines if a person known for one particular event is otherwise a low-profile individual. Sometimes the crowd here fawns over a two-minute celebrity because of large volumes of coverage. We don't want to otherwise try to write biographies of an also-ran based upon slim coverage. I understand you're a very inexperienced editor and I know some people take deletion personally. Rather than harbor bitterness over this, please accept that the notability criteria are something you need to edit inside. None of us likely have animus against Hildebrand; there's just not enough source material for us to feel this encyclopedia should discuss him in a standalone manner. You can always add more content to the article about this race. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're being capricious and insisting that you're using standards at the same time. You should pick one and stick with it. I could understand if you wanted to say, "Someone running for President and someone running for postal carrier have the same notability from my personal perspective." But if you're going to cite rules, standards, and guides, you should at least find one that backs up what you're saying. I can point to the standards that seem to exist based on the articles that are deleted vs those that are not, and I can point to all of the language written in the WP:N guidance. Ultimately, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you and this brigade wish to do one thing, there is nothing I can do to stop you. I can point to WP:N guidelines which clearly state that there is a presumption of notability when a subject receives significant coverage from reliable sources, but you are free to ignore those "rules" - after all, they are a reflection of consensus, not a mandate. But I implore you to develop intelligent standards and apply them evenly. If this encyclopedia is to contain information about political races, as it does, then this brigade of censorship is not healthy and does not improve the experience for readers or editors. I've been reading and contributing to wikipedia for 15 years. It is definitely a new-found consensus to attack articles like this simply because the subject is a candidate for an office - handicapping the media coverage, simply because the subject is a political candidate, and making up a new set of rules that say that media coverage doesn't count. Jon Ivy (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A publication like the Sacramento Bee has a duty to provide coverage of all elections of consequence to its readers. Wikipedia has a long standing policy that being a candidate for public office is not a sign of default notability, and so such local coverage is counted as routine. This especially applies to candidates only running in a primary. On the other hand, this does not apply to people who are otherwise notable, which virtually all significant candidates in a presidential primary will be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny_Tarkanian, Scott Ashjian, John Chachas, Wayne_Allyn_Root, Larry_Elder and Ron Unz are not proof that our established consensus about the notability or non-notability of candidates is "waning" — every single one of them actually makes some other claim of notability besides the fact of being a candidate, and every single one of them cites a lot more sources than have been shown here. Whether all of their other notability claims are compelling or well-sourced ones is a different matter that would require detailed review, and perhaps nomination for deletion as well if they're not really cutting it — but none of them are claiming that the subject is notable just for being a candidate in and of itself. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are rarely compelling evidence in an AFD discussion — nothing stops anybody from creating an article about anything or anyone whether that topic meets our notability standards or not, but we have to actually notice a bad, improperly sourced article about a non-notable topic before we can do anything about it, and bad articles about non-notable topics do sometimes fly under the radar for a while because the rate at which new articles get created sometimes outpaces our ability to stay on top of getting rid of the bad ones. So the existence of any article about an unsuccessful election candidate is not in and of itself proof that this one has to be kept too — the other person may have a different notability claim besides candidacy alone, or their article may also be deletable and just hadn't gotten caught yet. "Consensus", for AFD purposes, is established by our stated inclusion criteria and actual AFD practice, not by the mere existence of any article that seems to contradict it. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a candidate for a party nomination. Actually the article is less than clear on his actually filing to run. Short of winning the nomination, he is unlikely to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Actually, he's not a candidate for a party nomination. If you were an expert on California elections, like I am, you may know that our primaries are open, and that the top-two vote-getters from June will be on the ballot in November. 2) If you're basing his notability on a reading of the article, then you're suggesting I could edit the article to make him more notable, a suggestion that seems illogical. Jon Ivy (talk) 01:15, 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 Islamabad United. T. Canens (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonine Global Sports[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage. Clear failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They own the Islamabad United franchise of the Pakistan Super League, which by any standards is notable. I also advise checking the news refs. Mar4d (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good logic. You are here for nearly eight years, still you fail to understand our guidelines. Störm (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Islamabad United.Nothing semblant to sig. covg. outside the trivial coverage about their ownership of the PSL franchise.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect with Islamabad United. No notability outside of owning a notable team, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamabad United. The article essentially does not discuss the subject directly but their franchise Islamabad United. samee ^talk 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LGS also owns a team in Hong Kong T20 Blitz. - The Nation & GEO There is also a lot of media coverage like: Business Recorder, Daily Pakistan, AAJ TV 39.57.181.120 (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the team article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:31, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa May[edit]

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

Looks like a promotional article rather than a Wikipedia entry. None of the source establish notability. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. — 1997 kB 05:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing anything that would help this musician meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The entry lists several references but there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after all the socking, tantrums and name calling of the recent edit war, nothing has emerged even remotely close to notability. Almost all refs are simple sales listings. The nearest to notability is a blog style post about an interview where the interviewee is a fitness coach. Not quite WP:GNG. Very evidently a piece of pure promotion with no place on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noticed by Velella above, see the article's history in which someone called Lisamaymgt has fought pretty hard to keep the article alive with little regard for community collaboration or WP procedures. Meanwhile, the singer herself certainly has a quantity of song listings, stream links, and very brief introductions, but significant coverage has not happened. Also note that the singer's common name makes searching a bit of a challenge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 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.

deletion review)

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nithichai Chamchoi[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the Thai league fully professional? Because if it is, he could be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references have been added that show that he has played in the Thai premier league which is fully professional and so passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

striking keep as references do not confirm playing matches in premier league Atlantic306 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the Thai league is fully professional, then he does meet WP:NFOOTY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any source that pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Can you give me some source, Atlantic306? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should add his appearance and some additional source, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think its reference 8, Lerdsuwa (talk · contribs) can you please clarify this ? thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 8 said that he was with the team but I cannot find any source to help figure out whether he had any appearance for the team. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Couldn't identify any in-depth coverage online (Google results are only reports of team and/or match line-ups). This seems to suggest that the subject fails the GNG, which overrules WP:NFOOTY, but his career was a decade ago so I'm not exactly sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I don't know him and this article edit before 2009, That Thai League wasn't a professional league so I can't find any reference about him what team or stat. In my opinion I think this article doesn't have benefit and not have a reliable source. Ministerboy (talk) 12:25, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns in Malaysia with large Malaysian Chinese populations[edit]

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

Not informative and vague. What is "large"? What is the cut-off? Raw data doesn't say anything: Malaysian Chinese are the majority in Perai, with 36,4% of the population; in Batu Pahat Malaysian Chinese are a "significant minority" with 44,7% - what makes up the rest of those places? Merging some statistics to Malaysian Chinese is the best option. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our editing policy. The topic is notable as it is covered in detail in sources such as Unsettling Absences: Urbanism in Rural Malaysia and The Management of Secondary Cities in Southeast Asia. Note also that merger precludes deletion per WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andrew Davidson, I'm not saying that Malaysian Chinese is not notable, I'm saying that List of cities and towns in Malaysia with large Malaysian Chinese populations is not a sensible, comprehensive list. Like I said, what is a "large" population? Since you've brought up WP:PRESERVE, how would you fix it? And concerning WP:MAD, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Soetermans wants the page improved and/or merged. My point is that these things are not done by deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Improvements to the page should be discussed on its talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying there isn't anything to improve, because it has an ill-defined subject: "List of cities and towns in Malaysia with large Malaysian Chinese populations", which is incoherent and vague. For a third time, what makes something a "large population"? Do you have an answer? Because if we humble Wikipedians would decide what's "large", that would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or at least WP:SYNTH. Let's remove the word "large"; should we list all places in Malaysia with any percentage of Malaysian Chinese? That there are places with large populations of Malaysian Chinese can easily be listed in a table at Malaysian Chinese. And as far as I know from my Wikipedia experience, suggesting a merge as an option is fine in an AfD. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could have an arbitrary cut-off, say with a definition of a majority minority population (see Majority minority), or you could do a standard 10% or greater with a minimum number of 1,000 people. Or you could work from the top, with the top 50 cities with large Chinese populations (arranged either by proportion of population or by number). Agreed that as it stands it's a little vague. Stui (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 14 February 2018 Not not(UTC)

Keep. The majority cities are clearly sensible and comprehensive (though population cutoff may be an issue). The large minority cities less so. I'm not sure this is a deletion candidate, but I don't see anything wrong with a Merge either. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete populations migrate, a list such as this either has to cover the topic in a broad historical framework, and be unreasonably long, or be overly presentist for no good reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not a suitable topic for an article. First why single out this demographic, second why these towns – what is "large"? Tried looking at the reference but that is no longer online, and is only available from the wayback machine so unreadable and badly out of date. Might do as a table in e.g. Malaysian Chinese, properly sourced, but no way needs its own article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a vague representation of population data with an arbitrary selection criteria. It is not useful for the encyclopaedia. An equivalent example would be [List of cities in India with large Bengali population]. But there are many such permutations possible if we replace Bengali by any other ethnicity. How do we select which ethnicity to use? It is enough to keep demographic data of each city/town in its article.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:26, 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 speedy delete. company-posted spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VR Comic[edit]

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

Unferenced and no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:20, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Jorge[edit]

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

minor politician, fails WP:NPOL. also fails WP:GNG. Therea May Smith (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy municipal councillor is not an office that passes WP:NPOL, but there's no evidence here of sufficient reliable source coverage about her to get her past WP:GNG in lieu.Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At the time I posted my original comment, the article did state that she was a municipal councillor in the city of Salta, rather than a member of the legislature of Salta Province — because the nominator is the one who changed Jorge's notability claim from "member of the provincial legislature" to "deputy municipal councillor in the city" in the process of nominating it. I failed to catch that they had done that at the time, and it was reverted back to the original text after I posted my comment — but I did not misread or misrepresent what the article said at the time, the nominator (who's since been blocked) changed the article to misrepresent her actual notability claim, and it didn't get reverted back until after I commented. The topic here actually was a member of a provincial legislature, however, which is an WP:NPOL pass — some referencing improvement is definitely needed here, but we do indeed keep articles about provincial or state legislators. And Lonehexagon is also correct that the sources refer to her as Gabriela, not Patricia. Flag for refimprove, and move the article to her WP:COMMONNAME, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is not a deputy municipal councilor. She is a member of the provincial legislature, which is basically equivalent to being in a state legislature in the United States, and clearly passes notability guidelines. She is "for the provincial capital", in that that is her district, she is not a member of the municipal council but the provincial legislature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provincial legislator. Also note that most reports refer to her as Gabriela Jorge, not Patricia. Some news found here: Salta Entre Lineas. The results reference linked in the article does pull up this which shows results in her election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked into this person and they got quite a bit of coverage as an activist and in her position. As someone else mentioned, she typically uses the name "Gabriela Jorge" (without Patricia) so that may be part of why it was difficult initially to find sourcing. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Now that the nominator's malfeasance has been revealed and I've withdrawn my isolated delete vote accordingly, I've requested that MBisanz come back and just close this as a WP:SNOW keep instead of leaving it open for another week. There's no chance whatsoever that it's going anywhere, so there's no point in leaving it open anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN a provincial legislator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:51, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brooksfilms productions[edit]

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

Delete There is not a single source for List of Brooksfilms productions. Although Brooksfilms was founded by Mel Brooks, this article doesn't even mentions that got either Oscar wins or nominations. There are also no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and WP:NCORP. This is why it should be deleted. Evil Idiot (talk) 15:14, 22 January 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 January 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be complementary to Category:Brooksfilms films, and it is standard to index articles on notable films by their production companies. I don't know why it should matter for this purpose whether Brooksfilms as a company satisfies GNG (though I'd be surprised if it doesn't), as this isn't an article on the company per se but, again, a standard index of notable films. I also don't see a credible claim that such information is not verifiable, and the films' credits would presumably verify this even if nowhere else (just as you don't need a secondary source to verify a book's publisher). Maybe there's an argument that the nominator has not presented, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason for deletion or even a legitimate concern here. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As no counterargument has been presented to my observations, this is a keep from me. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs would help but are already available on the individual film articles. Includes extra info to the category such as gross and production company, an awards column could be added but as it is it serves as a useful index page. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly is this needed? There's already a category performing the same function. We don't keep lists of "Burgers made by McDonalds" or "Furniture made by Ikea". Why is this different? Dolescum (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, WP:NOTDUP, and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST for a hint at why your comment hasn't advanced the discussion, not to mention the fact that while all of the films listed here are notable, meriting their own articles, the same would not be true of the products you listed as inapt comparisons (but see also List of McDonald's products).

postdlf (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would refer you to read WP:NOTDIR and note that this could very easily be seen as a sales catalogue or list of products and the notability of the individual works is irrelevant to that. Throwing up accusations that my comment "hasn't advanced the discussion" looks rather defensive of you on the matter. I'd also remark that the several McDonald's products are apt comparisons as several products, such as the Big Mac, are cultural icons. Can you offer an argument as to what this list offers over a self-maintaining category, given that it simply replicates information already present in the individual articles? Dolescum (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sortability; annotations on distribution studio, year of release, and gross; and the possibility of direct sourcing. And no, I don't think this could "verily easily be seen as a sales catalogue" (yet the category poses no problem to you?), it's a list of notable films released over a span of decades, not a catalog of home media prices or a directory of theater showtimes (and if it had that information we would fix it by removing it). And please do read all of NOTDIR: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." postdlf (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do see this as someone attempting to build a list of entertainment products released by Brooksfilm. You'll note category 4. Despite the fact the tone of your responses has been so obnoxious I feel like declaring delete simply to spite you, I think the reasoning underlying your responses is good, so keep. Dolescum (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 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) 13:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 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 speedy delete. company spam, account now indeffed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comixv[edit]

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

From the text in the article this appears to be a means of enjoying comics through VR. This may or may not be notable in the future, but at present a single reference and little better in searches does not add up to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:21, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one songs of 2018 (Singapore)[edit]

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

There's no article on this specific chart nor the RIA in Singapore, so I'm not sure what makes reaching number one on a digital streaming chart encyclopedic. Are these considered the definitive #1 songs in Singapore or just streaming? Is there significance to reaching number one on this charts, thus better sourcing would be required than just to the chart itself? Fails WP:LISTN. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 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) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete - Non-notable musical chart list, containing just a single item, that too British singer's American song. মাখামাখি (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it only has one song in it at present, because we are only one month into 2018 – presumably not even Ed Sheeran will manage to be number one for a whole year. And I don't understand how a British singer can have an American song... The real question, as the nominator says, is whether this is the official chart in Singapore or not. I have concerns about the other charts the article creator has been editing as well – for example, the List of number-one songs of 2018 (Colombia) uses the Monitor Latino chart, but I'm pretty sure Colombia's official chart is supplied by National-Report. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only because it appears that Singapore does not have an official music chart. This would have been a keep otherwise. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I considered this chart to be official and at least acceptable, given that the RIA represents all of the music industry in Singapore, and it's also a part of IFPI (this requisite by itself has allowed other charts to be accepted as "official" here on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I can see how it can be considered irrelevant, as it only covers streaming, so if the article gets deleted I can understand. --CHUI372 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 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. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stannard (cyclist)[edit]

*Withdraw - source found and cited in the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cyclist has not competed in any competed major competition such as in a UCI World Tour or Grand Tour or Monument; Fails WP:NCYCLING. May be WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, as he signed a contract for a World tour team in 2019. Article needs a massive amount of work, which I can fix quickly.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:26, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Rickman[edit]

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

Multiple reasons. The article consists of two (unsourced) competing histories, and the claim of notability (that he served in a role that was a predecessor to Surgeon General) is unsourced and somewhat dubious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd be willing to buy "Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army in Virginia" as a credible notability claim if the article were actually supported by reliable source coverage about him, but that's not what the sources here are. #1 is a (deadlinked) family genealogy, not a reliable or notability-supporting source, #2 is here only to support a statement about the usual age at which men married in that era but contains no information about Rickman whatsoever (not even a glancing mention of his name!), and #3 is the (deadlinked) front splash page of a local historical society (with no verifiable evidence on a Wayback Machine search that it actually contained any content about Rickman himself.) And in addition to not being reliable sources in the first place, all of them are just footnoting the conflicting speculations about his personal life, rather than any content that actually pertains to his potential notability claim as a public official at all. Which means none of the sources here are cutting it at all in terms of establishing notability, and the role is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Going only by the current article and its properly-formatted references, there would be only two, fairly minor, points to add to the previous discussion. Firstly, a badly-formatted reference in the second paragraph of the "Kittiewan Plantation interpretation" section of the article does provide a legitimate source (even if it is primary and far too brief to contribute much towards notability) - a contemporary announcement of Rickman's 1775 marriage to a daughter of Benjamin Harrison V. Secondly, that full section of the article is shown by a look at the article history to have been added by an SPA in 2009 - and reference #3 is best taken not as an actual reference but as a declaration of authorship by the SPA. Moreover, a Ph.D. dissertation with two passing mentions of Rickman sources one of those two references (on page 242) in a way which strongly suggests that the SPA (or a namesake) is or was connected as a volunteer, contractor or employee to the current owners of Kittiewan Plantation.

Turning more generally to potentially reliable external sources, most relate to his period as what the article refers to as "Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army in Virginia" between 1776 and 1780. The nominator seems to regard the notability of this role as in some way dubious, and the claim of notability in the article is certainly rather overblown. I can only find the title as the article gives it in modern sources, and the actual title given to Rickman seems to vary from one resolution of the Continental Congress to the next - the situation behind it seems most clearly described in this account (which I am inclined to take as a reliable source). Judging from this, the official at this time who was most directly the predecessor of the Surgeon General of the United States Army was probably not Rickman but William Shippen Jr. - but Rickman was completely outside Shippen's authority. Another wrinkle in this situation is that the same work as I have just cited elsewhere describes how the Commonwealth of Virginia set up its own completely separate hospital, appointing James McClurg as its director.

Rickman's career in the post scarcely seems to have gone smoothly. The Ph.D. dissertation already mentioned (this time on page 178) notes that Rickman's original appointment attracted accusations of nepotism, and cites John E. Selby's "The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783" to this effect (though the relevant page of this is not visible in GBooks). The book mentioned in the last paragraph describes not only the previously mentioned turf wars but also the delays in finding a suitable hospital site that preceded them. Then, following some rather disastrous results of a smallpox inoculation program (for which this account seems to be the most thorough source, and this a fairly full but possibly less reliable one), the Continental Congress suspended Rickman from his post in December 1777 but reinstated him after an investigation in March 1778. After that, the sources go fairly quiet. His resignation in October 1780, in the midst of a reorganisation which had no obvious place for him, is approved in the Journal of the Continental Congress, who also then chase him over a couple of items of unfinished business. The next we seem to hear is in late 1783, when his widow petitions the Virginia House of Delegates for what amounts to backpay apparently owed to him - she gets title to about 6,000 acres in Ohio. After that, we get a chain of legal cases over the next century, all disputing or claiming this inheritance - and all quite likely in (easily findable) primary sources only. There are quite a few sources attesting to his ownership of what is now Kittiewan, but while this is almost certain to be true, it seems difficult to find any source that does more than assert this.

Moreover, Rickman effectively has no verifiable past before 1775 and his marriage to Elizabeth Harrison. In the two or three years before the marriage, he slowly gets more and more passing mentions in primary sources - but that is all. The William Rickman who was a surgeon on a Royal Navy ship between 1766 and 1769 seems to have one or two reliable sources, but none which firmly connect his with our William Rickman. And we seem to have no reliable information about other aspects of his previous life - when he was born, had he married previously, and so on.

What we are therefore left with is a person almost certainly with enough good sources to guarantee notability for a very limited period of his life - but where even the basic facts of the rest of his life can not be reliably traced. And very little (perhaps none) of the current article would be likely to survive in a satisfactory article here. So, while in principle, there is enough for a keep !vote, it is not clear that it is worth it in practice. PWilkinson (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have time right now to sort through all the particulars, but it is well sourced that he was the director and chief surgeon of a hospital in Virginia from 18 May 1776 to 21 October 1780, according to the Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia and documents in the Library of Virginia Legislative Petitions Digital Collection A US Army Medical Department chapter titled "Evolution of the Continental Army Medical Department" mentions that he headed one of several Continental Army hospital systems. The book World Epidemics states he didn't behave very well in a 1777 smallpox epidemic, though an article disputes that. He was the first owner[42] of Kittiewan Plantation. The National Park Serice entry for Kittiewan provides a whole paragraph about him and his wife, his death and her subsequent remarriage. There seems to be enough reliable info for an article, regardless of what's there now. This Virginia General Assembly document, however, gives his birth year as 1720. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't find many sources other than those already listed. There is some mention of him as justice fo the peace in Charles City in newspapers from that era[43], but I'm not familiar enough with the era to know if attaching that William Rickman to this one is obvious or OR, although he is listed next to his neighbor David Minge in those newspaper articles. It seems certain to me that he was chief administrator of Continental Army Hospitals and director of a hospital in Virginia during the Revolutionary War (I would consider the thesis a reliable source, here). That he died in 1783, and he married Elizabeth Harrison, daughter of Benjamin Harrison. That he lived in Charles City. I wouldn't argue against saying that he owned land which is now all or part of Kittiewan, although I agree that the sources there aren't the best. Based on the sources I've looked at, I wouldn't include anything about his life before his marriage to Elizabeth. And while I see genealogies and DAR records about his descendents, I also don't see anything reliable that can connect him to any children. With those caveats, he seems a suitable subject for the encyclopedia and an article can be written about him wich is verifiable, neutral point of view, and not original research. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:10, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natives (Éditions)[edit]

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

Brought here through Help Desk post. Unnotable press house, main contributor is probably the founder and hence has a COI (that could arguably fall under WP:PAID but it does not matter). See Special:Diff/822995165 for details: this was AfD'd and killed at fr-wp. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link to the original AfD and Deletion Review. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep মাখামাখি (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are pretty weak. And all in French -- especially given that fr wiki discussed and then deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredproject (talk • contribs)
Delete -- lacks notability which is confirmed by the deletion of the article from fr.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLANWEL[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 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 keep. I'll file a copyvio-revdel request if one is necessary. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugartsthal[edit]

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

At least partly copyvio of http://infogenealogy.blogspot.ie/ The Banner talk 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just by going from English language sources, this most certainly was a real village.[44] Even if there is a "partial" copyvio, AfD is not the answer. Just remove the the copyvio content. It can be reduced to a stub if need be. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strangely, the user who contributed the material that is both on the blog and in the article, User:Andreypl, has a very similar name to the author of the blog, Andrzej Polska. To me, the problem isn't likely copyright violation - although I don't know what copyright blogspot might claim if the material was posted there first. It might be that primary sources are not optimal for this sort of information. In any case, this looks like a real place and generally would be considered suitable for inclusion based on WP:NGEO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added a possible copy vio tag to the relevent section. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) ps. although it looks like it was first on WP (just in a different format) as the article was created here, and subsequent additional information added before the information appeared on the blog according to the dates of the post there. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:GEOLAND - the village clearly existed per the article and cursory BEFORE. On procedural grounds this is a wrong nomination - a copyvio should've gone to a speedy deletion request, not AfD, if on the entire article. I do not see the copyvio at the moment - but if it was on part of the article, that part should've been redacted (and revdelled).Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is about notability, not quality. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this discussion is another example of local projects undermining the policies. The Banner talk 16:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion is a policy, too. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting copyvio by inaction is not mentioned as a valid alternative. The Banner talk 17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khatarnak[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM unsourced except for IMDB and nothing of note found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep found one reliable source review here, there may be more in telegu language sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know why the article creator has avoided adding sources now...thanks for the source which must be added if this survives AFD if only to be able to read this following quote which is a classic ...

 The unrealistic stunts will actually make you squirm in your seat. Teachers are bound to get irritated at the way they are presented in this flick. They appear as if they are ramp-walking and the less said about the school principal the better.
  Ileana wears barely there outfits and has nothing much to do in the film except look glamourous. The camera tries to capture more of her midriff in various angles than her face. Perhaps the director knows she cannot act.
  The music by Keeravani is pathetic. So are the dance numbers. Kota Srinivasa Rao does justice in a cameo. The double entendre and the bizarre stunts really hurt. Only a miracle can save this film -- watch it at your own risk.

Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Industrial[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. References used are from company website or Answers.com. Unable to find anything in a WP:BEFORE search to satisfy WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI WP:SPA article setting out a company's wares. Passing mentions such as this from 2003 – via HighBeam (subscription required) verify that this is a company going about its business, but no evidence of notability is provided or found in searches. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 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 redirect to Cornbugs. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Town (album)[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage about it in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT TO BAND, whose article is slender enough. This is a textbook example of a non-article crying out for such a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 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 redirect to The Quireboys#Albums. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homewreckers & Heartbreakers[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM; additionally: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Enwebb (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Quireboys#Albums. I was surprised not to find any coverage, but I found none. It's worth a redirect though. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above Atlantic306 (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Quireboys#Albums. I guess this is well after the Quireboys heyday and the music press had lost interest in them, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a review of this record in the print versions of NME or Q at the time. Fails WP:NALBUM but no harm in redirecting it though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 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 redirect to Cornbugs. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Psychos[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage about it in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cornbugs - lack of notability for a stand alone article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 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 Cornbugs. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton Farm[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage about it in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cornbugs - lack of notability for a stand alone article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 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 Cornbugs. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rest Home for Robots[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage about it in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cornbugs - lack of notability for a stand alone article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahati Remmy[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be WP:ONEEVENT Meatsgains^(talk) 03:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable early career journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete it... It has the links.. Check at the bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaijaivan (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIP. Brand new journalist. Not notable scope_creep (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add, no sources, all OR, and likely vanity. The purpose of this page seems to be personal PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:BEFORE, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" before nominating an article for deletion. A quick Google search shows several examples of significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. She is a very popular journalist and was arrested live on TV;^[2] an incident that was widely reported. I have added these to the article.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] She's also won awards from NBC.^[8] Lonehexagon (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.amazon.com/60-Second-Sale-Ultimate-Relationships/dp/1119499763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518890885&sr=8-1&keywords=9781119499763
^ http://press.vosd.tv/video/t_9EZOMN9JpMU
^ http://matookerepublic.com/2017/01/09/nbs-journalist-bahati-remmy-in-fear-as-mysterious-man-stalks-spies-and-threatens-her-at-jinja-court/
^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uganda-media-crackdown_us_56d5d6f5e4b0bf0dab33808c
^ https://hrnjuganda.org/?p=2557
^ https://www.howwe.biz/news/entertainment/10906/i-was-man-handled-and-sexually-harassed-by-police
^ http://press.vosd.tv/video/t_FuC6TqCIAds
^ http://enewsug.com/journalist-bahati-remmy-rewarded-big-at-nbs-tv/

These seem mostly to be videos and websites. The NBC "awards" are self-described as: After having Lunch with the CEO Kin Kariisa , I walked away with three awards and three Certificates of recognition. I have been awarded for being the most Daring reporter, Best person of the week and NBS TV Personality in other media. I have also won A cash prize, and a Dinner Voucher for two. You can't, with a straight face, be proposing that these demonstrate notability, right? Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 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 keep. The tech issues which resulted in the article being a plethora of red links seems to have been resolved for now. (non-admin closure) Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 17:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westrobothnian[edit]

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

This article is a mess of language template errors on gmq-bot. Even though the article and the subject might be notable I am nominating this soft deletion or draftify to fix. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:SOFIXIT, WP:DEMOLISH, and who buggered up the templates? It didn't used to have all those errors. "Needs markup fixing" is not grounds for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is an issue with the template. I tried WP:BEFORE to find the ISO lang codes from https://datahub.io/core/language-codes but could not find the gmq-bot the language code used. The errors were introduced in this edit by (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westrobothnian&oldid=809025859) and became worse after each edit by user Knyȝt --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 04:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason all these errors are showing up is the recent rewriting of the {{lang}} template. There are two possible solutions: 1) set all instances of this template in the article to use a language tag that the template finds acceptable (gmq would do the trick if there isn't anything more specific), or 2) request support for the gmq-bot tag at Template talk:Lang. And Hagennos, AfD isn't the place to seek help for fixing technical issues in articles; if you can't think of a more specific place, the WP:Teahouse is usually a good starting point. – Uanfala (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any "mess" in the article. Perhaps the technical issues have been sorted out since it was nominated for deletion? /FredrikT (talk) 15:23, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Penny and the Lion[edit]

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

I'm only seeing one non-trivial source (a brief review here); doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is mostly another platform for the writer and all the references listed pertain to him, and not this book. Enwebb (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources, reviews, and modified/removed author bio section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzgig123 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essentiallyt an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a well set out article (a tad promotional?!!:)), this does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, none of the references cited are useable for notability being from amazon, publisher sites and blog types, even the review from Kirkus reviews although being critical of the book, are generally not seen as useable (recent reviews, anyway:)), also doesn't appear to be well known with WorldCat listing just one library, the LOC i suggest the article creator, Fizzgig123, has a read of Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Notability (books), and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK, exactly as set out by Coolabahapple. Title can be added to lists on pages of author and illustrator. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 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 keep. Consensus is that there's enough coverage to keep the page until the official release. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll Be Your Girl[edit]

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

Does not satisfy musical notability. Unreleased albums or songs seldom satisfy musical notability. Notability is not inherited from the performers. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmm, yes it's unreleased...but it gets released in a month and there's already loads of coverage, so deleting it now would be pointless. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Michig - this article has been created too soon, but their last two albums reached no. 1 and no. 7 on the Billboard 200 so I think we can be pretty confident that this record will have plenty of reviews and a chart position four weeks from now, so the deletion isn't worth it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could we move it to user space instead of deleting or keeping something which may be slightly WP:TOOSOON? SportingFlyer (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty stupid and incredibly pedantic to delete an article which will clearly satisfy notability very soon. And to be frank is notable now. Stupid, pointless discussion and a complete and utter waste of everyone above's time.

If you had waited a few weeks to create the page and for notability to be satisfied then instead of "soon" then we might not be having this "stupid, pointless discussion". Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just let the article snowball. No point in deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Inspiron 11 3000 Series 2-in-1[edit]

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

Not a notable product, seems to be a review article, would be better served on the page of the Dell Inspiron lineup BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly falls under WP:NOTCATALOG--Rusf10 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - just a list of product features. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:35, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HP Pavilion x360[edit]

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

Page is of a non-notable product, which can be better served by including it in the main article on the HP Pavilion line. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 00:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per WP:NOTCATALOG, we can't have article about every single product in existence.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a list of product features. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:38, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FM 777[edit]

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

Non-notable local internet channel with promotional tone. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet radio services are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because they're technically verifiable as existing, but this isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to pass WP:GNG in lieu: two of the three sources are press releases from the station, and the third is a deadlink whose former content is entirely unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page about the organizer of this project, Arthur Charles, was recently deleted - I think better sources could make that subject suitable for the encyclopedia in the future. However, Charles' individual projects are not themselves clearly recieving enough coverage that pages about them don't seem overly promotional and have significant POV issues. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency Therapeutics[edit]

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

Relatively young biotech company. Has no products on the market and ~~not even~~ an early stage lead development candidate. "Article" is basically a directory listing and is beset by its creator who is hammering the talk page with demands to "update" it with news about very early and incremental steps in the company's scientific development, based on a primary source (a scientific paper by people affiliated with the company) and a press release hyping it. (these steps may turn out to be correct, or not replicable and thus dead ends, or may turn out to be dead ends several years down the road....). The company is WP:TOOSOON (if ever) and not worth our effort to maintain. This is pretty much the kind of page we want to rule out by raising NCORP standards. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) (correction Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bad faith nomination by an editor trying to avoid a content discussion. Coverage of this company in RS is fairly extensive. Clearly meets WP:GNG. NickCT (talk)

I had been cutting this slack as its notability is marginal at best, but your advocacy has made that not worth while, and more so as time has gone on. Not bad faith, just unwilling to tolerate corporate cruft that is also being bludgeoned.Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. In general, WP:TOOSOON: the company has not achieved anything significant just yet, apart from raising money. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: - Care to be specific? Which references exactly don't meet which WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? Your comment re "not achieved anything significant just yet" may be true, but isn't really relevant. If "hasn't achieved anything significant" was a rationale for deletion, we could probably delete a whole bunch of articles. NickCT (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - A couple editors seem to be stripping references from the article in what seems like an attempt to make it appear less notable. I'm going to include the stripped references here for the record. NickCT (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

^ Woods, Bob (2 January 2018). "Breakthrough drugs offer hope for the 360 million people with hearing loss". CNBC. Retrieved 7 February 2018.
^ "Could an injection reverse hearing loss? This Woburn startup thinks so". Boston Globe.
^ "Farmington Medical Startup Targets Hearing Loss With New Drugs". Hartford Courant.

Keep - Plenty of notability, and even if they never achieve a product, then we'll just have another entry in the big book of vaporware. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 17:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've been asked to elaborate on the sources that do not meet CORPDEPTH. The sources above are exactly such sources, such as

"Could an injection reverse hearing loss? This Woburn startup thinks so". Boston Globe.

These types of articles discuss the company's hopes and aspirations. They lack intellectual independence and are insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I do not understand your comment about "intellectual independence". The link takes us to a Boston Globe article and not corporate puffery. This is a text that mentions extensively a corporation - precisely the kind of appearance in a reliable source required by Wikipedia. I'm sure you're not suggesting we should prefer information from the company itself, since Wikipedia actively and explicitly discourages the use of primary sources, i.e. info from the subject itself. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable for an article. Alexbrn (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article about a private corporation meets the required criteria: it has been the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources", per citations above (plus others one can find, such as here, here, or here), which go beyond "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source"; coverage in sources evidently extends far "above routine announcements"; and so on. This is a keeper. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill medical startup, no indications of notability (but a lot of aspiration), reference contents are not intellectually independent, relies extensively on PRIMARY data, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a passing reference, two 'local business on the rise' articles and a web story that looks like an uncritical regurgitation of a press release. This company may become notable, but it doesn't look like they are there yet. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.amazon.com/60-Second-Sale-Ultimate-Relationships/dp/1119499763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518890885&sr=8-1&keywords=9781119499763

[2] ttp://press.vosd.tv/video/t_9EZOMN9JpMU

[3] ttp://matookerepublic.com/2017/01/09/nbs-journalist-bahati-remmy-in-fear-as-mysterious-man-stalks-spies-and-threatens-her-at-jinja-court/

[4] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uganda-media-crackdown_us_56d5d6f5e4b0bf0dab33808c

[5] ttps://hrnjuganda.org/?p=2557

[6] ttps://www.howwe.biz/news/entertainment/10906/i-was-man-handled-and-sexually-harassed-by-police

[7] ttp://press.vosd.tv/video/t_FuC6TqCIAds

[8] ttp://enewsug.com/journalist-bahati-remmy-rewarded-big-at-nbs-tv/

[9] Woods, Bob (2 January 2018). "Breakthrough drugs offer hope for the 360 million people with hearing loss". CNBC. Retrieved 7 February 2018.

[10] "Could an injection reverse hearing loss? This Woburn startup thinks so". Boston Globe.

[11] "Farmington Medical Startup Targets Hearing Loss With New Drugs". Hartford Courant.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]