Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 25

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Jagrit Pratap Singh

Jagrit Pratap Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable "content marketer". Refs are press releases or news stories where he is quoted. The article is extremely promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Certainly not an influencer. Social media profiles show no signs of strong influence. However, his company Hiptoro has a strong Facebook following, which would qualify for notability before the owner. Pilot333 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so no sign of passing WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. The creator of the article has been blocked as a sockpuppet. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 stock market selloff

February 2018 stock market selloff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:NOTNEWS; there's no sign this sell-off will have long-term impact. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Sufficient time was given for this article to be expanded, but hardly ever any independent reliable sources were reporting on this sell-off along with its impacts: short-term and long-term. And since markets appear to be recovering from this month's major pullback, it's appropriate to delete this article for now. OfficerAPC (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: Although markets sold off during the course of last week, there is no official word on whether that is related to last month's sell-off or whether it is a completely different situation. Nonetheless, the article still doesn't have much to say about a recent event, suggesting there is insufficient coverage that can be verified without question (particularly ABC News). Also, the text was copied from another article that compiles a list of stock market crashes and bear markets before being removed for reasons L293D provided for this discussion. OfficerAPC (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS; if it's actually significant in time, no prejudice for recreating it. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't pass GNG, and not a significant event with any noticeable long term impact. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Prince George Citizen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Prince George Newspapers

Prince George Newspapers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a local newspaper-indexing database, with no particular claim of notability besides the fact that it exists and no reliable sourcing to get it over WP:GNG. Something like this would need to clear WP:ORGDEPTH as the subject of more than just local media coverage, not just to be nominally verifiable as existing, to warrant an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to The Prince George Citizen, I agree the subject of this article does not get significant coverage in reliable sources. However, the database does get some coverage, could be mentioned at the page about its creator, and could be a useful redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Merge per Smmurphy. That is a good solution. The target is a short article, including one sentence on the archive, which would be replaced by a section. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to The Prince George Citizen - there's no independent references at all in the article, and unlikely to be anything significant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. article appears to meet notability requirements (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey

County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The page was created to circumvent the likely outcome of a deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson. The article serves no other purpose. The History section just duplicates information already found at Atlantic County, New Jersey#Government and politics. Then you have biographies of three people. The first one Charles D. Worthington actually passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the state general assembly and already has his own article (so we're just duplicating information). The second "Richard Squires" was freeholder for 20 years, but can only be sourced to a few local newspaper articles. And the third Dennis Levinson is already being discussed at his own deletion discussion. Combining several non-notable topics into one article does not make it notable. The article is mostly about election results anyway. It's amazing in over 40 years of combined service these three men have accomplished almost nothing of note. Maybe county executive just isn't that important of a position? Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete there have been a number of very local New Jersey politicians who have undergone AfDs for lacking WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. This article basically merges three of those articles into one. Unfortunately, that still doesn't make the article pass WP:GNG: members of a list don't have to be notable, but the list itself has to be notable, and even though this is a three-person narrative list, it's still a list. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you please address the scope of the article? ThanksDjflem (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought I did. The original part of the article contains information about the governance part of the county, which provides a background to the list: but the problem is, the list itself isn't notable. I can't find any secondary sources showing a history of county executives in Atlantic County, and most importantly, none of the members of the list are notable on their own. This article is a creative way to merge several non-notable articles together to make them notable, but the topic itself isn't notable - there are no reliable, independent secondary sources I can find on county executives. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I need to get better at citing policy; this article's a clear WP:BLP evasion attempt. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a first stab at creating an article that provides a comprehensive history of the top elected official of Atlantic County, using multiple references from books and newspapers not included in any other article. The article has one -- and only one -- edit so far, but it's already under attack. This article was created to address the nominator's concerns regarding one of the individuals who have served as county executive, adding details and sourcing unavailable elsewhere on a topic with obvious evidence of notability, though it's unclear that there is any level of sourcing that will satisfy the most implacable opponent of the effort to build an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'll change my vote if you can find a reliable, independent, secondary source. Right now we have:

• an article about the type of government New Jersey has, which is fine, but is outside the scope of the list
• a New York Times opinion piece which because of the way it's presented is basically a primary source
• a primary source on the history of county government
• a decent secondary source on New Jersey Politics and Government, which is a good source, but it's not about any of the people who were county executives
• a court case, probably a decent source but has the same problem as the book
• another primary source
• three other primary sources and several newspaper articles, all about the election of these people to the office.

Find me a source showing the notability of this particular county government and I'll change my vote. I also note this type of information is not normally found on Wikipedia, but I don't want to make a WP:OSE argument. Also want to note the one person on the list with an article passed WP:POLITICIAN for being a general assembly member. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If that source can be found it should not only be a reliable, independent, secondary source, but with in-depth coverage. I'm sure there's some article with a mention of one of these people attending an event or being quoted about something, but it needs to be in-depth coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The nomination is misconstrued and suffers from tunnel vision, conjecture, and other uninteresting musings. This is an newly-introduced article about a elected government position, the highest at county level. It is appropriate to include those who held he position to be included.Djflem (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Djflem:- Please lay off the WP:PERSONALATTACKs--Rusf10 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to say, it's not about you. The nomination contains:

conjecture: "The page was created to circumvent the likely outcome of a deletion discussion."

tunnel vision: "The article serves no other purpose." citing WP:POLITICIAN does not address scope of the newly-created article.

irrelevant musings: "It's amazing in over 40 years of combined service these three men have accomplished almost nothing of note. Maybe county executive just isn't that important of a position."

Yes, that is about me. And all of those statements backup my claim why this article should not exist. 1. The person who created this article clearly did so in direct response to the other deletion discussion (he even says so above), so don't call it a conjecture. 2. The two of the three subjects in this article do not independently pass WP:POLITICIAN. The third already has his own page, so including information here is redundant. If the subjects fail notability standards independently, they do not all of sudden pass when combined. 3. That statement makes the larger point that the position itself is barely covered by reliable sources, outside of election results.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, this article was created to add an encylopedic topic to Wikipedia that addresses your concerns about another article. The creation of this article involved researching the subject, finding sources -- some tough to find due to the gap in access to sources from the 1970s -- and writing an article about the topic in a manner that would provide readers with an encyclopedic overview of the topic.(Personal attack removed)Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, this article was created to add an encylopedic topic to Wikipedia that addresses your concerns about another article. The creation of this article involved researching the subject, finding sources -- some tough to find due to the gap in access to sources from the 1970s -- and writing an article about the topic in a manner that would provide readers with an encyclopedic overview of the topic.

Please remember that this AfD is one mere part of a s-storm of deletions started three months ago because you didn't like my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here). There is something truly f-ed up about about an editor trying to trace me back to create a WP:COI connection to an article for a person I had little to no idea existed beyond having a Wikipedia article. In the months since, out of pure spite, this started with a blizzard of AfDs of articles about people from Teaneck and, since that first effort was largely unsuccessful, you are stalking me to articles I've created, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson and a half dozen articles bundled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico, and now this one. There is something even more fundamentally f-ed up with an editor who devotes 99% of their time on Wikipedia to destroying encyclopedic content all as an act of revenge for a vote at an obscure AfD about Bill Zanker, an article I never gave a s-t about other than it was about an individual who I thought was notable. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. - The article is about the executive branch as a territory with 250,000 people. Considering how many articles we have around the world for various countries and states, I am sure that a county executive passes the notability criteria, and that more sources will be found on the future. This article was only made a few days ago, and I am sure I can be expanded more. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You're joking, right? 250,000 is smaller than the population of my town. In England. That is a tiny number. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a hard AfD to vote on, good points are made on both sides. However, I think some of the focus of the votes are misdirected. I like Hurricanehink's reasons, namely that we have pages for much less important people who control much smaller parts of the world. This is not an AfD about the three named people on this page, this is an AfD about the topic of the page itself. And I think the topic itself is notable, regardless of whether or not the people listed in one subheading of this article are notable on their own. There other other pages of varying titles that encompass the same information for their respective counties; Snohomish County Executive, Westchester County Executive, King County Executive, County Executive of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and List of county executives of Jackson County, Missouri to name a few. Atlantic County is comparable to the above examples, the only difference being that most of those other pages include former executives in list form, while this page does it in paragraph form (arguably better, and more encyclopedic). I don't care if the people are on the list are notable, not notable, etc, I care if the topic of the article is notable, and to me, it certainly is. We're lucky to have Alansohn contributing to this project, he's one of the most consistent and hardworking editors I've seen. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about the three people. This is in fact a composite WP:BLP article. It is not simply an article about the office that contains a list of people who have held it. The article contains extensive biographical information about three people so it should be treated as a biography. There is almost nothing to write about the actual office (or at least nothing that wasn't contained in the Atlantic County article before). You are also making an WP:OSE argument by finding similiar articles, which is usually not a good one to make. However, those articles are not exactly the same, if you want to compare this article to the others you listed, you will see that not a single one of them contains biographical information.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't have to be about three people. More information can be found and added about the position, this AfD was made before the page was even 3 hours old, I say let's be patient. The way I read this page it's about the position, not the individuals who hold it. It absolutely is about the office of county executive, with incidental biographical information about the people who have held that office in the past. Their inclusion in this article is not necessary for it to meet notability, and many other pages only included this type of information in list form. Apologies if my wording came across contrary to WP:OSE, it was more so to show how this article is actually better than those which only include a list.. I like list articles to have more biographical information in them. It's more encyclopedic.

At the end of the day the AfD should question if "County Executive of Atlantic City" meets GNG. I say it does. Again, I don't care if the individuals who have held that position meet GNG on their own because that's not what the AfD is about. You said it's not simply an article about the office, I'm saying from my perspective it is. On those merits alone it warrants inclusion on this site. That's my take on it. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting how the nominator claims this is a composite WP:BLP article. It has been claimed that election coverage does not count or qualify individuals under Wikipedia:NPOL. Yet here - when most of the coverage about the individuals who have held the political office is in direct reference to the actual election to the political office- it becomes an "illegitimate" biography. How does that work, that in some places election coverage of a person doesn't make it valid biographical coverage about a person, but here, a rationale for claiming it is a biography. Seems a little odd, no?Djflem (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, at this point the page has been edited to sufficiently toss the problems brought up by this AfD out the window. I don't think it was before the edits, but surely at this point it's not an article to circumvent the BLP policy. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is still a composite biography, nothing has changed. The people's names were just replaced with the years they served. When you still have content like "Raised in Ventnor City, Levinson graduated from Atlantic City High School, before earning a bachelor's degree at Glassboro...", that's a biography. The three subjects do not pass WP:NPOL separately because there is virtually no coverage of them outside election results. They do not pass when combined either, you can change the title of the article and subheadings as much as you want to try to disguise it, but it is still a WP:BLP.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. Consensus is that this article is a WP:CFORK of List of school shootings in the United States (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

List of school massacres in the United States

List of school massacres in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Content fork of List of school shootings in the United States, created as an end run around an inability to gain consensus for adding duplicate content. Suggest restoring redirect, but any attempt would likely be reverted, so bringing it to AfD to check for consensus. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CFORK. Protect article from recreation if necessary. Ajf773 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect - per nom. Doesn't seem like a necessary second article. No merge given it looks like it was reverted multiple times from the main article and is already in the history there. Whether to include this sub-group should be discussed on that talk page first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect per above. No need for a separate article. Lepricavark (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Reverse redirect. Not every shooting is a massacre, and not every massacre is a shooting - e.g. Enoch Brown school massacre mostly involved melee weapons. It is also possible there are other school massacres involving bombs and knives (or other deadly implements) and not guns. I do not think there should be two lists (though one could have two lists - they aren't exactly content forks) - however if we have one list - it should be this one - List of school massacres in the United States as it is more inclusive in terms of weaponry used to commit the massacre.Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect as clear content fork. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Merge This is best added to Gun violence in the United States as a sub-section, not as a stand alone article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Garnet Stevens

Garnet Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only has one source, which is insufficient to establish notability per WP:N, and there is minimal coverage of the athlete online amongst reputable sources. Therefore, there is no feasible means to enhance the article, so it is redundant and fails on grounds of notability completely in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:NSPORT, the Pan Ams are an event where one would have to medal to qualify for an article on that basis, not just to be there at all as with the Olympics — but other than the PanAms, this just generically says that he competed at other international competitions without actually specifying which ones or suggesting that he won any, the single primary source present here doesn't verify any competitions (not even the PanAms) at all either, and there are no other sources being cited here to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and insult to injury his name appears to be misspelled in the article. (Garnett) SportingFlyer (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• delete Simply competing at the Pan-Ams is not enough to show notability and he fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Call it slightly WP:CSD#G7-ish, if you like. Best of luck in the future! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Arman Soheili

Arman Soheili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not satisfy sports notability or general notability. Google search does not turn up anything other than his own pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

All of his results won't come up on a google search because they are all included in PDF's on the Referenced websites. Can provide Newspaper Articles and result PDF's If needed. Incredablemra (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC) incredablemra

I have added some result PDF's as well as a few News articles. Let me know if anything else needs to be added/ Done to create the page. Incredablemra (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Incredablenmra

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If delete, delete also User:Incredablemra/sandbox, see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Incredablemra/sandbox. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What ways can I prevent Deletion? Anything to add/ Take away? As stated, I can (and have) added result PDF's aswell as Newspaper articles. also google 'Arman soheili Biathlon' for more info (Team Bc nominations, etc.) Incredablemra (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Incredablemra

• Delete. Sportspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but nothing here passes WP:NSPORT — he'd have to be competing at the Olympics or the World Biathlon Championships to qualify for an article, not just any lower-level regional biathlon championship that exists. What would you have to do to prevent deletion? Get him into a competition that actually constitutes a reason for him to have a Wikipedia article, that's what. Also, Incredablemra, I strongly suspect that you wrote about yourself here, so please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, as he doesn't appear to have any notable accomplishments so far. PKT(alk) 14:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am his father, I made this in hopes to use it to promote my son even more on the international scale. After reading the sports notiability section, I do agree that because he is not on the world level yet ( he hopes to be next year) that he and the pages dont meet all requirements for a wikipedia page. Incredablemra (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Incredablemra

Does deletion of this page prevent him from getting one in the future? He is being scouted by Youth/Jr. Team Canada right now and we expect him to be on the IBU (International Biathlon Union) team in the next 3-4 years which would then make him eligible at that time, If I am correct? Incredablemra (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Incredablemra

No, deletion doesn't prevent an article from being recreated in the future if and when the notability equation changes. Deletion is much more a matter of WP:TOOSOON than "never" — if he achieves something in the future that satisfies our notability and sourcing standards more clearly than he does today, then yes, a new article can absolutely be recreated at that time. But it will have to be recreated in a neutral and encyclopedic format, not as a promotional profile. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is very sensitive about being used for promotion, and reacts strongly against it. I recommend Facebook, or buying a private website. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong delete It is bad enough that we have ridiculously low notability guidelines for sportspeople. We need to act with all possible speed to remove junk promotional articles on sports people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete no sign of meeting the SNG, and explicitly promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hollie Chapman

Hollie Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable actress, No evidence of notability - Trivial mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Veto, Main cast in a series, which was aired international. And a long time main voice in The Archers of the BBC, which is also known international. Here and there little roles. It's enough. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Being in a show that aired internationally means nothing - Many actresses have been in the exact same spot as Hollie and most if not all have been deleted regardless, Also just to note you were the creator so ofcourse you'd !vote Keep .... I still maintain she fails NACTOR as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I see it still different, but I have made the article shorter. I must say it was one of my first articles I have made, to a topic I think it was clear that the relevance is there. I think she is relevant because Do not blame Me was an international aired series, especially in Australia, Germany and England. And she plays a role in the Archers, how I said above. All the other things are interesting, nothing more. I think that it is "not" common that such actor article are erased in the past etc. How ever the clicks on it also not less: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-30&pages=Hollie_Chapman I think since 2009 the article was clicked by a lot of persons. I suppose, today persons which looking for her in general to the BBC-Acting. However I think the article is useful and relevant. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Having significant regular cast member roles on both The Archers and Don't Blame Me already indicates passing WP:NACTOR. The significant coverage from the Melton Times and another BBC piece further indicates notability. [1] --Oakshade (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would hardly call a role in a 5 month tv programme as "significant" ....,

This is a great source however being in one programme combined with this one source should not be any justification for keeping an article, If you could provide reliable and independent sources that establishes notability I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 25 Feb

26 episodes is most certainly significant. Original network airing duration is just a red herring. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, 26 isn't really much at all. –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure you understand the television business, but 26 episodes is more than an average entire season. Fawlty Towers had literally 12 episodes total with an original airing duration cumulating less than 2 months. The Office had only 14 episodes total. This person was the star of a show that even you admit is a 26 episode show with its initial airing going 5 months. By emphasizing this person stared in a 26 episode series and that show's original airing duration is actually further demonstrating notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the number and extent of her roles and the coverage are enpugh to meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

One reliable source and the extent of her roles are certainly not enough, I have no objections to merging but as it currently stands there isn't any evidence of notability and as such there's no justification for keeping thus far. –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment interviews like one of the BBC links provided are primary sources and self-promotion that don't count towards notability, which requires secondary sources. While Melton Times does base some of its content on the subject's own commentary, it provides some other material of its own. Not sure how much that counts for when one takes away her quotes. Spotlight isn't very useful when it just contains listings rather than substantive coverage on Chapman, and I don't even see her name mentioned in this URL. One legitimate secondary source by itself isn't enough for a separate article even if its coverage is considered significant without her own comments, so unless someone can find more quality unaffiliated references going into more than just brief mentions of Chapman (preferably more than a paragraph), I'd be inclined to say delete or merge. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: core character in The Archers. PamD 09:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which doesn't establish notability, Which part of NACTOR and WP:BASIC does she meet ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it's certainly one instance of "significant roles in ... notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", for starters. Or are you going to claim that radio doesn't count? PamD 15:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And a 16 year stint (see here) in one role seems to me to be the equivalent of "multiple" roles, in spirit if not in letter. PamD 15:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Off topic.

You will not and understand what is clear above. Such destroy-edit says anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollie_Chapman&type=revision&diff=827758439&oldid=82775497 Beside that the section on your personal page "Articles I've rescued" looks funny, I can nothing see what was rescued in the history, you have only enlarged. ;-) Not serious. But however. We use the imdb again and again and is not so, that it is not usable at a source. It is only so, that whe should compare it also with other sources etc. Your citation-command makes not really sense. ;-) --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) I understand perfectly thanks!, Go and read WP:Citing IMDB, I'm not sure what my userpage has to do with anything but if you look at [2][3][4][5] you will clearly see I've rescued those articles .... so contrary to popular belief I'm not one these deletionists that wants rid of every single article here .... but on the otherhand we should balance things and ask ourselves "Is this person really notable?" .... my answer to that is no however apparently everyone thinks otherwise .... I'm not going to argue with consensus it is what it is ...... As Snuggums has gone with delete I can't really withdraw so it has to remain open. –Davey2010Talk 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Well If I didn't "enlarge" (ie cite) those articles they'd all face deletion wouldn't they .... so I would say I have rescued them (ie rescued them from deletion) ..... –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC) I have read it to the imdb. Look above etc. If you don't like the IMDB in general for usage in the wikipedia, and you mean you are right? Than your next step will be that all imdb-links will be erased by yourself. Perfect Vandalism-View. :-( Sorry, but I clicked on some articles, "you" are meaning you have rescued ... ;-) However. I don't think that your erase-ideas to this article are useful. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Consensus is to not cite IMDB .... I don't make the policies my friend I just follow them, Most BLPs don't have IMDB as a source but if they do and if i'm working on that article then yes I'll replace it but if I'm not working on it then it gets left as is, As for "erasing" ..... theoretically that's the whole point of AFD .... to have deleted "non-notable" subjects ....Again what I percieve to be non-notable may not be seen as such by different editors.... Ofcourse I disagree with everyone here but that's what consensus is all about .... Going with what everyone says even if you disagree ..... –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC) The word "Consensus" is not to read on the page Citing IMDb your view is a unreasonable overinterpretation. It is clear that you have problems to understand the page and so on. You don't want "not cite IMDB" so it is clear, that at last you will kick all imdb-entries from the wikipedia out, because you mean it's to less serious. Logic and so on. But it is also clear that you will erase parts of the article, so is your hope that the article quality is at last weaker and so on. But the relevance is still there and so on. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC) WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor, Also what the actual hell are you babbling on about ? .... WP:Citing IMDB clearly states and I quote: "Inappropriate uses IMDb content inappropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs). Cast lists, etc. for films and television programming that are still in development or production, and have yet to premiere. The user comments for each title (this includes user reviews and ratings), which are pure user-generated content. Sections written in wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ), the :::::::#parental guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control). Newsgroup reviews, which are archived Usenet postings. The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions. The recommendations. So maybe you should stop questioning my competence and start looking at your own competence (or incompetence in this case). –Davey2010Talk 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC) See above. The reason why you will not that people will read it, so you have placed the "collapse bottom" is clear. Good to see how you are working. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There were a lot erased by the user Davey, compare there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollie_Chapman&type=revision&diff=827758439&oldid=827754975 He means he is true and placed the collapse bottom after the discussion to the sense of his edit and so on. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing content and sourcing -not just IMDB sources - just before or during an AfD is not cool and is bad form. I fail to see how an editor is concerned about the validity of mainspace content sources of an article they want to delete. I’ll revert the sources erasing. All editors can look at the article in its pre-erased content state and come to their own conclusions.--Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NACTOR. Hmlarson (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: This article is loaded with an abundance of reliable sources, including BBC, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc. The subject passes WP:GNG. Carajou (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dremio

Dremio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just another startup, with minimal coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most cited is Dremio itself. This is an add, disguised as "just facts". Mduvekot (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - There are a ton of mentions and a few general announcements of funding, but nothing really in-depth. There is this which I like as Venture Beat usually goes more in-depth than funding, but it still falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Should also be aware that there is a nice article in Forbes but it should be disregarded as it is not written by a staff writer. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not seeing a lot of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very notable, not well referenced, and borderline spam. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom, zero reasons provided for notability, references fail criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Adhyaan

Adhyaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence either in this article or on Google search of either musical notability or general notability. This page has one reference that is not independent. Google search on either Adhyaan or Adhyan Dhara turns up only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. --আফতাব (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cupid.com. Article does not appear notable enough as an independent article (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

NSI Holdings

NSI Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable company. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Cupid.com as non-notable. BEFORE checks show no non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cupid.com. Holding companies absolutely can be notable if there is WP:CORPDEPTH, but I only found a few references and they are mainly listings or press releases. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Withdrawn by requester (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Heraldry Society of Scotland

Heraldry Society of Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In the 13 years we've had this article it has yet to have a single source. A search on Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR finds no references. A search on Google Books finds its name invoked several times but generally incidental mentions - such as appearing in a list of organizations in a genealogy book - therefore not passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep -As it is factual and has RS; this is part of the a social movement in Scotland. It may not be a heavily traveled article or have great interests outside of Scotland, but it has been a part of Scottish history for some decades and fact alone tells us this article should stay. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Ya, not a thing in the news [6], sure thing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The article you just linked doesn't mention the Heraldry Society of Scotland at all. It mentions the Court of the Lord Lyon, an entirely separate (government) body. Chetsford (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Look to the left of the main article for the section on the Heraldry Society of Scotland, it even lists their website. Cheers C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's all it lists. The entire content of the Heraldry Society of Scotland in the article you just linked is the following sentence: "For more about the Scottish coat of arms, go to www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/beginners.html". That's probably why I missed it, since it doesn't even mention their name, just their website URL. Does that establish WP:CORPDEPTH? Chetsford (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding three articles that contain a quote from a member of the society, however, these incidental mentions don't contribute WP:CORPDEPTH per our policy: "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Chetsford (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It actually listed out regulations for use of hereditary items, according to the Heraldry Society of Scotland, as well as mentioning how to find out more on the subject. It does show that this topic is still relevant today and the need for this article to stay for those wishing to learn more on the subject, especially those in the Scottish diaspora. Given the recent additions and citations, this article meets all of the requirements to stay, IMO - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep In terms of Heraldic societies I think this one now has far more sourcing than most. The article was originally created in 2006 by an editor that simply copied material from the society's own website which was not removed until a few days ago. No improvement templates had been added at any point. I have now rewritten the article. A book review in the The Scottish Historical Review mentions "the previous revival of the 1970s (notable especially for the foundation of the Heraldry Society of Scotland)" [7]. Newspaper coverage of the society includes their chairman meeting the Queen in private [8] and the society providing assistance to Colin Powell [9]. The society does appear to be credited with playing a part in an increase in the quality of Heraldry information in Scotland. Their website had a favourable review in 2011 [10]. Given that the activities of Heraldic societies probably aren't the sort of thing that would get many journalists rushing to find stories, I think WP:ORGDEPTH has been demonstrated here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and withdraw nom - the improvements of Drchriswilliams have sufficiently salvaged the article to push it over the finish line. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially nobody put forward an argument for keeping this article. If anyone wants this userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter and Irene Ludwig Foundation

Peter and Irene Ludwig Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable topic. No reliable independent references whatsoever. Dial911 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the German page is well-developed but no help in references as it is just the home page for the foundation; however, I found a couple different sources online talking about the death of Irene and a contract signed with the city of Cologne. [11] [12] also [13] I can't really make a determination about source quality due to language issues but this isn't the most well-fleshed out AfD. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Peter Ludwig himself was a highly notable art collector, per obits and other coverage in The New York Times [14][15][16], The Economist [17], The Guardian [18], Los Angeles Times [19][20], etc. We really ought to have an article about him, based on the existing German Wikipedia article, which could then include some of this content about the continuing activities of his and his wife's foundation, as well as mentions of his various funded museums (and links to those which already have articles in English Wikipedia). As to the current AfD, I suspect the foundation is notable, based on the content of the corresponding German article, although the sourcing in that article is not as extensive as we like to see in English Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- Can't find any information on the topic and existence of a German wikipedia article doesn't mean anything. But I do agree an article on Peter Ludwig himself would be appropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Christoffer Stub

Christoffer Stub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources, The dotesport ref is a mere mention, complexitygaming is not independent, and liquidpedia is not reliable. Mduvekot (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Added citations from dbltap.com and a 30 minute interview conducted with coin concede podcast discussing his influence and thoughts on the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.24.56 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete Not sure how he could meet GNG. He'd have to win more than one tournament to make him notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete lacks coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Gilbert NMO Morris

Gilbert NMO Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of an academic and writer, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of passing our notability standards for either occupation. Eight of the nine footnotes here are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, such as pieces of his own writing about other subjects, the Amazon buy-it pages of other pieces of his own writing, a random issue of a newspaper that he owns being cited as sourcing for the fact that he owns it, and a Facebook post. And the only source here that might represent reliable source coverage about him is a dead link which isn't even recoverable via the Wayback Machine to verify how much it did or didn't say about him. As always, a person gets over Wikipedia's inclusion criteria by being the subject of the sources, not the author of them. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The subject did rate one non-independent mention in Caribbean News Now, and is cited as a source in a few books and articles. However, nothing seems to indicate that the subject meets WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE, and the absence of multiple independent reliable sources that substantially cover the subject means the subject fails WP:GNG. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Eddie Chow

Eddie Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a music entrepreneur, not referenced to any evidence of reliable source media coverage about him at all. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN, so a person is not automatically entitled to have an article on here for publicity purposes just because he exists -- and there's a WP:COI here, as this article has been edited in the past by at least two different usernames that both strongly imply the subject himself. To qualify for an article, he must be reliably sourced as passing a notability standard, and the article must be written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone -- but this, as written, is an unreferenced résumé, and claims nothing about him that would entitle him to a presumption of notability in the absence of properly reliable sources for it. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Article is without a single citation. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources provided in the article and I can find no coverage about the subject to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I saved us all some time and WP:A7'd this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

For those who are wondering about this, the article consisted of a single sentence, and a Template:unreferenced tag that had been placed eight months ago and never acted on. Anybody who wishes to write a real article on this topic is free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Manchu studies

Manchu studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Manchu people are certainly notable but the actual discipline of studying them does not appear so. The only trace of sources that exist relate to a study group. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Goods and Services Tax (Malaysia). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Goods and Services Tax Act 2014

Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

More suitable to be in wikisource angys (Talk Talk) 16:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• How is that? it's not a copy of the law, so I can't see how it would fit there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect It's redundant with Goods and Services Tax (Malaysia). There's an argument that all legislation, at least of national level legislatures, is notable, and if there was substantial material about the passage or nature of the law distinct from the tax it establishes, that would have some merit. But right now it's just a sentence and a list of contents. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect per Colapeninsula. There's no substantive content here to suggest a reason why this would require a separate article from the overview of the tax itself. Sure, legislation is notable in principle — but an article does have to be more substantive and better sourced than this before it needs to stand alone as a separate topic from the thing that was created by that legislation. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Anand Cine Service

Anand Cine Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails CORPDEPTH. Just some passing mentions in newspapers apart from business listings. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - The one source cited in the article is a passing mention. In looking for other coverage, I cannot find anything more than additional passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - trivial mentions only. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Abrahamian

Paul Abrahamian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Per television appearances: [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. London Hall (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Notability has already been established with Paul Abrahamian as he set some records in the Big Brother house and has appeared in every season since Big Brother 18. OfficerAPC (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of independent reliable source that establish this person's notability. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage exists to prove notability. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the article is ridiculously promotional, and the cameos are fancruft, but being runner-up on two consecutive seasons of Big Brother meets WP:ENT, and there's no argument he's a low-profile figure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Eli Wilner

Eli Wilner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Promotional / Conflict of interest: Article is a promotion created and edited by the artist (Eliwilner (talk · contribs)) and his friend (Tayloracosta (talk · contribs)). The former user has added promotional material to other Wikipedia articles. Article is heavily subject to conflicts of interest per WP:CONFLICT, as the artist's friend and he both created it / edited it.
• Non-notable: Article is not linked to anywhere on Wikipedia.(WP:NOTABILITY)
• Lack of sources: It does not have any high quality sources to show it's worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. (WP:SOURCES)

I propose delete due to the above reasons. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just curious but how has this article been assessed by two different WikiProjects before? And simply because an author has a personal connection with the subject it doesn't mean that their past edits to the subject should be reverted, only scrutinised and then discourage future editing to the article per WP:COI. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 05:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete There are some sources out there, but they talk about his richness (has a multi-million dollar compound in the Hamptons), what he does on Sunday (NYT profile of his Sunday routine) and a couple others that talk about how he is also rich. Nothing much in terms of notability. Realistically, once you have covered the sentence "X owns a framing company" there is not much more to say.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep- There is coverage of this guy see [25] [26] [27]--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I see both sides to this argument: there are three NYT articles, but they are all lifestyle focused. The Artdaily that are on there now are NOT RS. If this article is to be kept, it needs to be absolutely gutted, b/c right now it is all COI promo cruft. --Theredproject (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per sources identified by Rusf10 above. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep there's enough coverage, though the article needs more cleaning than the bit I've done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• 'Keep - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jae Millz

Jae Millz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Jae Millz discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

His first studio album, depending on where you read in the article, is either promised for 2013 release or 2015 release. It appears he never crossed the line to actual notability, but hit a ceiling and never got that studio album released. 20 mixtapes is nothing to meet our standards of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 04:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Millz has an extensive discography and a properly referenced main article. If these articles can not be kept, they should be redirected to Young Money Entertainment. Also, @Orangemike:, I am adding Jae Millz discography to this discussion, not because I think it should be deleted, but because it does not make sense to have a discography article about an artist that does not have an article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The discography is for Young Money as a whole. None of the charted entries was by Jae Millz alone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - I am leaning towards keep here. As Jax 0677 stated, the article is well-referenced. From what I can find, Millz left the Young Money label at the beginning of 2017, so appears no studio album is forthcoming. However, I think the Young Money involvement, including contributing to a certified-gold collaborative album, as well as the numerous features and having a song on the soundtrack of a major video-game franchise meets the notability requirements for musicians. Abierma3 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The only sources link to very subject specific sources or are about him leaving Young Money Entertainment. "If a promoter’s booking Millz, then that promoter’s fallen on hard times." AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Jax 0677. This article is well-sourced, and Millz has adequate notability. I do not believe that this article is beyond hope of improvement. Davey2116 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Hit singles. Plenty of coverage of him and his collaborations and his going on his own. Not sure what the issue is really. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No More Pain (band)

No More Pain (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Currently poorly sourced article, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that they meet WP:GNG, WP:NBAND, or WP:MUSICBIO. Created by a COI editor, who also created articles for this bands 3 releases. I will be adding those as well to this nomination, as I would have redirected them to the band, but I then realized the band is not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Debate and Rhyme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Post Human Condition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Spader EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep the band article and redirect the album articles. The band was nominated for notable awards,and have had its albums released on a professional label in Japan so they have an international audience and are more than a local band. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - What notable awards? The only nom I see is for Asbury Park Music Awards, which while meeting WP's notability standard, is hardly a notable award. And Marquee Inc. isn't a notable label by any standard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lewiston, Maine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Lewiston, Maine City Council

Lewiston, Maine City Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

City Council of a city of 36,000. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I am the creator of this article, which I modeled on the Portland, Maine City Council article. Lewiston is the second-largest city in Maine after Portland, and as such, its government has a significant impact not just on the 36,000 people who live there, but also on the state as a whole.Kiernanmc (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete 36,000 people is way too few for a seperate article on a city council. We don't have an article on Sterling Heights, Michigan city council and Sterling Heights has over 130,000 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The absence of a page for Sterling Heights does not mean Lewiston should get shafted. Portland, Maine is just over half the size of Sterling Heights, yet it has a page for its city council and no one has nominated that page for deletion. I would also note that Sterling Heights, whatever its population, is not the second-largest city in its respective state. Lewiston's city council plays a significant role in Maine politics.Kiernanmc (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Wikipedia has not (to my knowledge) established rules about when a page like this is justified and when it isn't. In the absence of clearer guidelines, I vote to keep. We ought to err on the side of inclusion (especially when no one is saying the material in question is incorrect, biased, etc.).Kingmanatee (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. In its current form, the article is absolutely lacking in sources, and it's barely more than a directory listing. Thus—and after doing a Google search—this article appears to fail WP:GNG. Regardless of what any specific guidelines for notability say, the general guidelines always apply: if the subject doesn't get significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it may not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and (probably) partial merge to Lewiston, Maine. I was surprised to find that the main article for Lewiston, Maine has no text about about the government of the city or its school district. Compare the articles for similarly-sized Maine cities that do contain sections describing their governments: Bangor, Maine#Government, Portland, Maine#Government, South Portland, Maine#Government and politics, Auburn, Maine#Government, etc. I didn't see anything in the article history indicating that there had ever been such a section, though I might well be missing it. In any case, the main article should have a section describing the basics of the city government's structure, and this could start by incoporating the first part of the City Council article. On the other hand I doubt that the list of current members is appropriate Wikipedia material. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Lewiston, Maine. I agree that the city council is not independently notable. I can imagine circumstances where relatively small cities' governing bodies are independently notable, so I would be opposed to a general rule against the notability of small cities' governing bodies, but this subject fails GNG per C.Fred. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. City councils are a WP:MILL thing: every city that exists at all has a body to govern it, so they can't all be handed an automatic presumption of notability just for existing in the absence of enough reliable sourcing about them to clear WP:ORGDEPTH — and it's vastly overstating things to claim that the city council plays a prominent role in state politics, because the city council has no authority at all three feet outside the city limits. So it's not enough to just assert that this city council plays a more prominent role than other city councils — you need to show the sources which tell us that that's actually true. A city council's notability or lack thereof is not based on where it ranks in a population contest — it's based on whether or not reliable source coverage about the council can be shown to support some actual substance. What we're looking for, to justify an article about a city council, is not miniature BLPs of the incumbent councillors — we're looking for content about the council as a council, such as its voting structure and some evidence of notable decisions and on and so forth. Portland's isn't better than this, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument that this has to be kept — rather, you may just have made the case that Portland's needs to be deleted too. The city's article can and should contain some basic content about its municipal government, yes, but the key is to add it, not to use its lack as a reason why this is needed as a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Lewiston, Maine. I agree essentially with Bearcat's analysis above. However, the missing politics section in the Lewistn article can be added by judiciously trimming and merging this article into the Lewsiton article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- a city of 36,000 falls way below any possible discussion about this being a notable city council. A list of names in the Lewiston, Maine article is all that is needed, no redirect either.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jiraniti Thalangjit

Jiraniti Thalangjit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Since the previous PROD has been contested, PROD is improper. Ministerboy said: No reference support this article I think this article fails WP:GNG. So I nominated this AfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our absurdly low notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY played with Samut Songkhram in the Thai Premier League. Article from last year by FourFourTwo [28] describes him (จิรนิติ แถลงจิตร) as a core member of the team during that time. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WikiVirusC. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  @WikiVirusC and Lerdsuwa: Did this player have an appearance in WP:FPL? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yes in Thai Premier League, as my comment said, as "core member" of team. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - In all probability passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:N having played fully-pro. --Jimbo^[online] 22:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WikiVirusC above. It would be helpful if someone who can read the sources could add a sentence to the article that outlines his claim to notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk)
• Keep per WikiVirusC above. Avaay (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nipon Charn-arwut

Nipon Charn-arwut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Since the previous article has been deleted via PROD, PROD is improper. Ministerboy said: No reference support this article I think this article fails WP:GNG. So I nominated this AfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Now shown to meet NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Note - Article was created in 2009 when the player was with Nakhon Pathom FC while the team was in the fully professional Thai Premier League. We will need a source to show a match played, but this isn't as blatant violation of WP:NFOOTY as it looks. Its just a poorly sourced article that if we can find some Thailand league match data, we would be able to properly source. The issue is sources will be from 9 years ago, and nearly all of them will be in Thai. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Changed from just a Note to a Keep after the references were found by Lerdsuwa below including a match played to pass WP:NFOOTY. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep His name was listed here among 5 players from Osotspa FC during 2001-2006 as one of the best 20 teams all time: Celebrating 20 Years of Thai League: 20 All-Time Greatest Thai Teams. This Google cache page [29] of game coverage between Nakhon Pathom FC and PEA FC (unfortunately it ends up with black text on black background in the cache, use mouse highlight to the text to read) shows that he played in the game, getting yellow card after slide tackle. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't get the black background issue you had. I see a stadium of people as background, with a white box for the text to appear on. Either way, the text is accessible. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  I can see nice background now. Maybe temporary server issue. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per sources provided by Lerdsuwa. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, has played in a fully-pro league passing WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The Chiltern School

The Chiltern School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

"Only has 1 sources, very low notably, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V and WP:SCHOOLS. Low to not notable helps it to fail GNG and notability guidelines. Clearly not seen so many. Clearly poorly made. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:945C:527D:BBD6:528E (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)" Reyk _YO! 13:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The school articles notability guideline states: In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes. The Chiltern School has both primary education and secondary education for special needs students. (I did add info from 2 sources that reassured me that it does exist.) Reliable sources are sparse, it's true, but the school has only been in existence in its current form since 2012. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very informative article on a primary and secondary school with two locations. "In 2014, head teacher Shirley-Anne Crosbie was awarded the Order of the British Empire for "For services to Children with Special Needs Education". Good show! FloridaArmy (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the references and the article have been improved Atlantic306 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per notability guidelines. Decent article, though it could be longer. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
  _contribs) 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete not enough reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter Lomong

Peter Lomong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another article on a college athelte. Has a famous brother, but does not seem to have any notability of his own. Seems to have only competed at college level. Travelbird (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes. Peter Lomong placed 8th in the 2017 NCAA Division I Cross Country Championships and helped his college team win the national title. Also garnered a lot of national media attention. See https://www.flotrack.org/results/5986634-2017-di-ncaa-xc-championships/1128 — Stevey7788 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep plenty of coverage of this college athlete. He and his brother are runners originally from Sudan. ESPN did a whole feature on them. I suppose in a few years we can revisit and if he flames out we can say heu this was just a humam interest story with no lasting notabiloty. Bit as it stands now he's being covered for his story and his running. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Lawi Lalang

Lawi Lalang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Again, athlete with notable family, but again fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Travelbird (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Lawi Lalang is a top U.S. runner and most likely qualifies as a notable sportsperson, whereas Ehab El-Sandali may not. — Stevey7788 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, Lawi Lalang is currently competing for the U.S. Army and is in its World Class Athlete Program, which aims to train Olympians. Lalang has defeated top U.S. collegiate runner Edward Cheserek before and has won various awards. Plus, he placed first in the 2011 NCAA Division I Cross Country Championships. I wouldn't delete this article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• The Runners World article is entirely about him. He woj "three NCAA titles-one at the 2011 cross country championships and the 3K/5K double at the 2012 indoor nationals". Seems very notable to me. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Goutham Siddaartha PU College

Goutham Siddaartha PU College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another non-notable junior college not listed in the Bangalore school lists. No significant coverage provided, only some random profile articles with passing mentions or the school website. Article was created by a user blocked for COI AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Looks more like promo than an serious article. Fails the notability guidelines. The Banner talk 02:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NOTSPAM. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glen Bredon. Sandstein 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DOS.MASTER

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/DOS.MASTER
• Articles for deletion/DOS.MASTER (2nd nomination)

DOS.MASTER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable software product. Substantial third-party references are simply not found, so reliable sources can't be used to establish deletion. Previous AFD was a decade ago, closed with shaky reasoning about asserted notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) 17:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to somewhere, probably to the author Glen Bredon, or maybe Apple DOS or ProDOS. I can't find many sources either, but this was about 10 years before the World Wide Web was common, so coverage would probably be mostly in paper newsletters and magazines, with maybe a bit of coverage in electronic newsletters on possibly-now-lost bulletin board systems. If someone indexed the text of the paper newsletters and magazines we'd probably have more information. With the caveat of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I will say that I didn't know about this program, but I never had a 3.5" floppy or hard drive in the Apple II era. (For those that don't understand what this program is for: Apple DOS 3.3 was too dumb to deal with anything except 140kB Disk II floppy disks. After DOS 3.3 came ProDOS, which had support for 3.5" floppies, hard drives, and so on. DOS.Master apparently hooked into the more-flexible ProDOS block device support, using that to run DOS 3.3 programs on bigger drives by making DOS 3.3 programs think that they had access a whole lot of floppy disks, which is all DOS 3.3 was smart enough to understand.) As for the few publicly-searchable web sources: The files for DOS.Master are at http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/a2zine/System/ but it's not covered in the a2zine articles themselves, as far as I know. There is a brief attempt at independent investigation of DOS Master at http://dreher.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=89 but it turns out not to have gone very far. --Closeapple (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - The ability to continue to be able to execute programs written for a previous OS on its abandonment, is known as backward compatibility. Such is very important & significant, and is what DOS.MASTER offered. In that era (late 1980's), backward compatibility was a real and huge concern in the realm of OSs. I was not personally involved in anything Apple related (I was, and still am, a "child" of Microsoft), so I don't feel confident about me personally evaluating the article's claim of DOS.Master having "experienced widespread success", but if the claim is even just somewhat true, then I have no doubt that DOS.MASTER is fully deserving of having a Wikipedia article.
  --DexterPointy (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note. Wikipedia's notability guidelines make no mention of backward compatibility. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment to Note: Wikipedia's notability guidelines also makes no mention of neither wheels nor tyres, both of which I perceive as being important & significant (though so in scope of vehicles, not OSs).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Glen Bredon per the rationale above. Judging by the sources I can find [30][31][32][33], it seems more like a topic that belongs in another article, rather than as its own stand-alone thing. It can be split off into a dedicated article if more sources turn up later. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Glen Bredon. There might be coverage to establish notability, but I suspect much of it is not available online. Alas, my own pile of Apple ][ magazines were tossed 15 years ago. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The animation Showcase

The animation Showcase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any notability beyond inherited (hence not a speedy delete, but I did think about it). Also reads very promotionally and a bit like puffery (how many "notables" are there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Also creator may have a coi.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to change and modify any part of the article that needs to be in order to make it clean and usable for the Wikipedia Community. Let me know. Siward (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Some sources might help to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

An article on Variety (magazine) is available in the animation edition of t his year about the event.

Yes there is a huge article in Variety that just appeared today, http://variety.com/2018/film/festivals/animation-showcase-boosts-shorts-around-the-world-1202700369/ ! The Article should stay. Slatersteven don't you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.234.67 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, generally we need more then one source establishing notability WP:GNG. I am not sure that one article in variety is quite enough to circumvent that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also this new source contradicts the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per the variety article Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the Variety + coverage is sufficient to establish notability. At worst a merge to Soho House would be warranted. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yaaq

Yaaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yet another Geonames-hallucinated "town" that isn't where the coordinates say it is. "Yaaq" is a common component of Somali placenames, apparently, and there are two other supposed towns of the same name according to Geonames, so I couldn't find anything that this might match. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• So this is another oddity, definitely nothing there and plenty of other places with Yaaq in their title, so really no idea. Doesn't seem verifiable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete As above, doesn't seem verifiable, so delete until the article can be created with proper RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per discussion above noting problem of verifiability. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. I also couldn't find relevant sources, and I think that the nominator is right that "Yaaq" is a common component in Somali placenames. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Xajuub Ina Gurey

Xajuub Ina Gurey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

"Unpopulated locality" (and Geonames doesn't even have "unpopulated") equals not notable even if I could verify it, which I cannot outside Geonames. Mangoe (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• So basically it's an empty patch of desert outside Hobyo, no evidence of anything other than clear copying of this article. Whoever filled out some of these Geonames places in Somalia was either randomly naming tents or looking at some lost gazetteer of incredible inaccuracy. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of these were put in by one person, and they illustrate the problems with simply dumping in gazetteers in these third world areas. In some of them the central government keeps good censuses and the like which allow verification besides plugging the coords in and seeing if anything turns up on the map, but Somalia is not that sort of place, and wherever the feds who load the data in Geonames are getting it from, it is full of spots that just don't check out. There are, perhaps, a lot of villages in Somalia which could have articles, but dots on maps with names next to them just are not good enough as evidence. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability can't be verified.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Sultan

Paul Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No signs of notability to be found within the article or online. London Hall (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. He's got at least a couple of major press books, so he's probably going to pass WP:Author.
• The disenchanted unionist, 1963, Harper and Row, reviews: [34][35][36][37]
• Labor Economics, 1957, Holt, reviews:[38][39]
• Right-to-work Laws:A Study in Conflict, 1958, reviews:[40]

That's just a quick look around.--Jahaza (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination - Per Jahaza. Thanks for finding these references, which I've missed. London Hall (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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. Michig (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ad Magnet

Ad Magnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability and CORPDEPTH. A search turns up mostly business listings due to the marketing nature of the firm. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete indeed, nothing in google books either; just listings Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Agreed, could also not find much on this. London Hall (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes, fails WP:V. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nahar Singh Jasol

Nahar Singh Jasol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing resemblant to significant non-trivial coverage.Fails both NACADEMIC and GNG. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Agreed, fails wp:GNG. London Hall (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete CV Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Gavin Kostick

Gavin Kostick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I declined BLP, but I do have some concerns, so let see what other editors have to say. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are an article written by subject, single line entries, listings and one does not even mention subject. Seems to have a good body of work, but lacks support to establish WP:NN. reddogsix (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I am guessing the article subject had a hand in this. I removed this source written by the article subject, which was used twice and inserted separately to puff things up. All in all there may be a hint of notability but it has been drowned out by dozens of poor quality event announcements, autobiographical sources and other non-RS items.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Firstly, I think it would be valuable to obtain feedback from other Irish editors. It might be less evident to those outside of Ireland that the awards listed in the article are - in my view - noteworthy and the references in national newspapers like the Irish Times are far from trivial. They certainly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability test for reliability and independence. This discussion, has, at least spurred me on to find more references and I've nearly doubled them in comparison to the original article. So while I've spent much more time on this than I planned, I believe it is much improved. In particular, I've added the scholarly response to the subject's play, The Ash Fire, which - as I've now put in the article - was noted for its important multicultural dimension. Perhaps reddogsix would care to revisit his opinion in the light of these additions and in the light of the spirit of the policy that: Prod and WP:AfD are only suitable if an entire page has one of these issues and cannot likely be improved. JimHolden (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There were three Irish Times sources. The one listed above was written by the article subject, so it is irrelevant and has been deleted form the article. Another is simply an awards listing. The third is a little better, but still does not amount to SIGCOV as it is about the play series and says little about our article subject.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Southbank Investment Research

Southbank Investment Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not think this company, established as a separate research and publishing arm of MoneyWeek Ltd. in 2016, meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. It was created by a likely CoI editor and reads like an advertisement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established by refs. Possible advert. Szzuk (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ekincare

Ekincare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very obviously promotional and ,despite the very numerous references, fails by some margin to meet WP:GNG. Most are passing refrences, press releases or similar.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Looks promotional and non-notable. FITINDIA 07:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Please see the recently closed WP:RM on the talk page if this is closed as keep, and implement the move or make a request at WP:RM/TR for this to be implemented. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

College of Arms Foundation

College of Arms Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm very sorry to have to nominate this for deletion as the COAF is maybe the second most reputable and important organization in U.S. heraldry, after the Army Institute of Heraldry. However, in keeping with our policies, this fails the WP:GNG. Article has been entirely unsourced for the last 13 years. A search on Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR return no results. A search on newspapers.com returns 13 results, however, they are all the syndicated version of the same UPI story from the early 80s which includes a two-sentence mention. Chetsford (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• It seems odd that an important foundation created to raise money for and promote the college of arms would not have have at least some news coverage at the time. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete considering that heraldry is of no meaning of value in the United States, this organization has no clear reason to be. So the lack of coverage is exactly what we would expect to see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Caucasus Travel

Caucasus Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable business. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: A WP:SPA article describing a company. Being one of the tour operators quoted in a Reuters article provides basic 3rd party verification but is not in itself evidence of encyclopaedic notability. There is a Washington Post travel article which declares that it used this firm's services, and the company appears to have become part of a Georgian Hospitality Group (about which there is no article) but I am seeing nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ned Goodwin

Ned Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Inadequate evidence of notability, and clear evidence of promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - The references contain no independent commentary at all, just what he has to say about himself. Yet another article about somebody who once went to Newington, which fails to meet GNG. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – Another Newingtonian of limited notability. However, this one seems to just pass GNG. He has a couple of articles written about him in the New York Times (in 2000 and 2013), a 2009 profile piece in the Sunday Herald Sun/Sunday Telegraph Magazine, an interview in Nikkei Weekly, and a handful of mentions in The Age/SMH over the years (Epicure, Good Food, Good Living, Sydney Magazine, Traveller). Some of the coverage is of questionable independence or trivial, but there seems to be enough good coverage there too to meet the bar. Kb.au (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete a review of the sources shows them to be human interist pieces at best, not the stuff we build notability on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per coverage from above. I'm perplexed at the suggestion that a piece that is substantial, independent, and appears in a reliable source such as the NYT or SMH does not build towards notability just because it is 'human interest', whatever that is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
• Keep. Passes GNG and shows no evidence of promoting anything as all product references were previously removed. Castlemate (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I voted Delete before, and still think that is appropriate, because the references just don't stand up. Instead of talking in generalities, I checked out each one. My comments on each one are:

- Ned Goodwin MW Retrieved 25 February 2018.: Profile written by the subject

- Why Japan has lost its MW Retrieved 25 February 2018.: No independent comments – just what the subject has to say about himself

- Australia's Wine List of the Year Awards – Judges Retrieved 25 February 2018.: Profile written by the subject

- Executive Style: Asian connection Retrieved 25 February 2018.: One sentence about the subject, followed by his comments about food & wine.

- Ned Goodwin hits Sydney for dinners at Ocean Room Retrieved 25 February 2018.: Not sure about this one – at first it looks like reasonable coverage by the Telegraph, but it reads just like a press release, down the same wording as his profiles elsewhere.

- Independent Wine Centre Retrieved 25 February 2018.: Profile written by the subject

- Newington College Register of Past Students 1863-1998 (Syd, 1999) pp75: List of students, does not contribute to notability.

- The Japan Times: A guide in wine is a friend indeed Retrieved 25 February 2018.: An interview where the subject talks about himself. No independent comments.

- Wine Searcher — q&A: Ned Goodwin MW Retrieved 25 February 2018: An interview where the subject talks about himself. No independent comments.

- Newcastle Herald: Frequent Flyer – Ned Goodwin Retrieved 25 February 2018.: An interview where the subject talks about himself. No independent comments.

So the only one which could possibly contribute to notability is the Telegraph article, and I think it is just echoing a press release.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, there is other coverage not referenced in the article:

– "Tales from... TOKYO, JAPAN", Sunday Magazine – Sunday Herald Sun (8 Mar 2009) – In depth interview about subject's career, as well as personal life.

– "The Sommelier", Style Desk, The New York Times (24 Sep 2000) – Article about what clothes the subject wears.

– "Ned Goodwin has diploma to prove his expertise in wine", Nikkei Weekly (6 Sep 2010) – Profile on subject following awarding of Master of Wine certificate.

– "Q&A - Master of Wine NED GOODWIN", My Paper (13 Mar 2013) – Interview with subject about wine and location suggestions.

– "Airlines: Boutique Wines Aloft", Travel Desk, The New York Times (17 Mar 2013) – Short article talking about how subject has joined All Nippon Airways as a wine maker.

– "FREQUENT FLYER", Traveller, The Sydney Morning Herald (11 May 2013) – Light hearted interview with subject about travelling.

– "Masters of the (wine) universe", Epicure, The Age (24 May 2011) – Mentioned as an example of a sommelier who recieved widespread media attention and consultancy work after becoming an MW.

Notability is not based solely on included sources (see WP:BEFORE). Kb.au (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin Broadband

Origin Broadband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. It is a small company in its sector, the refs don't support notability, the article reads like they are trying to synthesise notability. Szzuk (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Arianna Afsar

Arianna Afsar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

On dear. Google news returns no results. Google offers link in and social media. Not won any national competitions and now performing in regional theatre. Epitome of non notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I do not know how you are using google, but my google news search shows plenty of sources. She is performing in Hamilton and certainly not the epitome of non-notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources. The article appears to be well-referenced. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep As per above, I have no idea how you find that Google news returns nothing, I suggest you check again. Miss California, runner-up at Miss America, contestant on American Idol (admittedly only a semi-finalist but it all adds together), currently playing a main role in 'Hamilton', all referenced. Seems cut & dried to me. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete she is performing in a touring production of a show, not on broadway. News hits for cast listings, and the productions own news pages do not add up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 First Things. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

First things

First things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a reasonable disambiguation article; I can find nothing that attests to the usage of "first things" to refer to things Jesus said, and it's not included in the linked page (which is a redirect to Jesus). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and possibly redirect to First Things SportingFlyer (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The idea behind rejecting disambiguation comes about from cases where there is a term and it has only one meaning. Therefore redirects are only of the simple spelling-correction form. But that argument is inaccurate in this case, that "first things" is a journal and only that, is clearly false, as the name of the journal has prior art in the religious expression "first things," its expository definition which links to related terms, and some other specific (literal) uses, mostly in relation to the original term (religion and moral philosophy). -Inowen (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment after reviewing the article with additional edits, I still fail to see how this is a proper disambiguation page. The only article that's a blue link that would need to be disambiguated would be the journal. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect - per SportingFlyer. Isingness (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to First Things. A hatnote could be added there to Hadley Arkes. The other pages currently linked don't appear to include "first things". See WP:TWODABS. Cnilep (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Waheed Kader

Waheed Kader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Tanmay Bakshi

Tanmay Bakshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or any SNG, and the human-interest coverage of a 14-year old being "IBM Watson’s youngest programmer" should not let this meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Bankers Life Fieldhouse

List of entertainment events at Bankers Life Fieldhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Violation of WP:NOT and doesn't meet WP:LISTN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Kill with fire, ban the user who keeps creating this junk. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete completely fails WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I have noticed the creator has uplifted the list from the parent article Bankers Life Fieldhouse. On the topic of lists of entertainment events, there is a whole category of them worldwide: Category:Lists of events by venue. I am leaning towards deleted but asking the question first whether these lists are suitable for the encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Birbal Jha

Birbal Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NACADEMIC all the main sources does not qualify as WP:RS others are just passing mentions. Hagennos^Talk 05:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 05:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 05:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete founding a group of schools is not generally a sign of notability. Since virtually all secondary schools get a notability pass, we are not about to say every school founder is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at FedExForum

List of entertainment events at FedExForum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Largely unsourced list does not meet the criteria of WP:LISTN. Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a clear violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Kill with fire, ban the user who keeps creating this junk. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly violates WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I have noticed the creator has uplifted the list from the parent article FedExForum. On the topic of lists of entertainment events, there is a whole category of them worldwide: Category:Lists of events by venue. I am leaning towards deleted but asking the question first whether these lists are suitable for the encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the BMO Harris Bradley Center

List of entertainment events at the BMO Harris Bradley Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

largely unsourced article does not meet the criteria of WP:LISTN Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete clearly a violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Kill with fire, ban the user who keeps creating this junk. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:LISTN SportingFlyer (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Restored to main article as was done before it was moved here (no prejudice to whatever action you want to take on the information in there; it's very incomplete); a spin-out nobody asked for. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I have noticed the creator has uplifted the list from the parent article BMO Harris Bradley Center. On the topic of lists of entertainment events, there is a whole category of them worldwide: Category:Lists of events by venue. I am leaning towards deleted but asking the question first whether these lists are suitable for the encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Qeshm Air Flight 1202

Qeshm Air Flight 1202 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - article is about an aircraft which once had a mechanical problem, causing a flight delay. Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom and this doesn't even come close to meeting the WP:AIRCRASH non-binding notability guideline. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. @SportingFlyer: This might actually pass WP:AIRCRASH as it seems like the damage was a writeoff (particularly with the crane next day - on an old aircraft). However, no fatalities. Landing gear mishaps are common. Sourcing does not establish GNG (and not much more available in BEFORE), and no lasting impact expected.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but I'm not sure it's been written off yet. Coverage probably won't survive the newscycle anyways. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I generally vote 'keep' on air crash articles, but here, I must say that it is poorly sourced and fails at WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH, so I must vote 'delete'. No apparent hull loss, no fatalities, nothing important. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nutan Naidu

Nutan Naidu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Once I'd got through the peacockery, and reformatted the pseudo-references to other Wiki articles into bluelinks, and done a Google search, there was nothing left but for two trivial mentions and some social sites. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(NB Article creator User:Sumitmpsd has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry) Narky Blert (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable and only serves to promote the subject. MT Train^Talk 11:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing stated here passes WP:NPOL, this is formatted like a résumé (with weird digressions into poetry) rather than an encyclopedia article, and there's no evidence that he passes WP:GNG — once I stripped all the invalid WP:CIRCULAR "references" to other Wikipedia articles, all that was left was a primary source candidate financial report, of the type that doesn't demonstrate a candidate as notable because every candidate has to file one, and a single news article which glancingly namechecks his existence without being about him in any substantive or non-trivial way. As well, there's possibly a WP:COI of some kind here, as the creator's username suggests that they may be the same person as the author of the news article — so even if he has no personal connection to Naidu beyond admiring him, the "self-citing your own work" problem would still pertain. As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn on which a person is entitled to have an article just because he exists — to get an article on here, a person has to satisfy our notability standards. But there's no evidence whatsoever that Naidu does, and even if he did this article is written so awfully that the "blow it up and start over from scratch" treatment would still apply. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

English/Scottish clubs

English/Scottish clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Orphaned disambiguation page, unlikely search term. Delete. feminist (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete It is a meaningless disambiguation. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I would keep it for the same reason it was originally created as a disambiguation page: to direct anyone looking for a combined list of English and Scottish soccer clubs to the two separate lists. Why not? Better than having someone create another combined list. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

ProTip: in UK, only boys at some (but not all) fee-paying schools play soccer. The game is football, Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We're not all in the UK, and it's a natural disambiguator that is quicker to type than "association football." Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion to Delete upon consideration of the convincing arguments provided by other editors. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as utterly meaningless. Two different countries. It makes no more sense than would American/Canadian football clubs. Especially when you consider that "clubs" includes e.g. the CIU. Narky Blert (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as improper disambiguation page, along with the articles I'm about to create, Australia/New Zealand cricket clubs, Argentinian/Uruguayan rugby clubs and Canadian/American bacon. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Seems a bit pointless to me, out of curiosity whats the view count on the page? Govvy (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

65 views in the last year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 16:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any purpose served by this dab (which isn't really a dab) page, or any circumstance under which users would search for it. If by some chance it is kept, it needs a new title, as "clubs" could refer to hundreds of different concepts...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with the reasons outlined by several users above, but would also strongly support the point made in the last comment that'clubs' does not have to mean football clubs - it could mean any other sporting club, a social club, a fan club or even nightclubs. If a disambiguation page was needed (and I do not think it is) it would surely be list of British Association Football Clubs which would also then lead to Welsh Clubs as well. A Scotland/England split actually makes little sense as there is not name for a combined entity that is just Scotland and England and so this approach arguably treats Wales as part of England or ignores it. Dunarc (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - why combine these two nations? Completely confusing. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Bruce James

Bruce James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, just no claim to notability at all. Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable politician. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. As with all of the other glut that are getting cleaned up right now, serving as a county freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he can be nominally verified as existing — the article would need to be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about him to get him past NPOL #2 as significantly more notable than most other county councillors in the United States. But the only "reference" here is his own primary source profile on the county council's own website about itself, which isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong delete This over coverage of New Jersey politicians has reached the level of absurdity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Maurice Fitzgibbons

Maurice Fitzgibbons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable county level politician that does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. The article was originally a copy and paste job from [41], although it has been edited since then. Rusf10 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN and not otherwise WP:GNG SportingFlyer (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

List of songs from Disney theatrical feature films

List of songs from Disney theatrical feature films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is not even close to being comprehensive and contains info that can be found on the movies' pages. Centibyte^(talk) 02:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Each film likely has a 'soundtrack' heading where all of this is found. We don't need all of this combined into one. Nate • (chatter) 07:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to this article being completely unnecessary since people can search for the film's soundtrack in their own sections on their respective Disney film articles, this list is horribly incomplete as it only lists songs from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Dumbo and Bambi. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard DuHaime

Richard DuHaime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable county level politician and failed senatorial primary candidate. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable New Jersey politician (sigh) SportingFlyer (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator has withdrawn the nomination and per the consensus here. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 11:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Jorja Leap

Jorja Leap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm no expert on professors or anthropoligists, but she doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Happy to be proved wrong if her citations (how do you figure that out?) or other distinctions pan out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Two major books: Jumped In: What Gangs Taught Me About Violence, Drugs, Love, and Redemption [42] and Project Fatherhood: A Story of Courage and Healing in One of America's Toughest Communities . The article needs some rewriting, which I am doing. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep and Copy-edit - Per DGG.London Hall (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Both of her books have multiple published reviews in places like Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and the Los Angeles Times, enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. I added the reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Passes WP:AUTHOR, if not WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and possibly WP:PROF#C7 ("substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination. It's snowing. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Glass manufacturing exhibition

Glass manufacturing exhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable trade show with no significant press coverage. Also misleadingly titled. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Quiness

Quiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm unable to find sources which indicate that this is any different from any of the other thousands of research programs conducted. Given COI issues, it is likely riddled with WP:OR as well. My spot checks of sources in the "historical firsts" section couldn't find any mention whatsoever of Quiness. SmartSE (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Could not find any non-trivial mention of Quiness in sources provided, nor during basic web search. The funding program resulted in non-trivial scientific work but that does not make it notable in itself. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as mentioned by the nominator, a search for this doesn't reveal in depth coverage. And this article is currently a bit of a puff piece anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DB Studios

DB Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORP. The few sources are press releases, mainly about a company that bought them. Industry awards are ten a penny, and there's no independent coverage of this one. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I agree completly. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as the article lacks in-depth sources. Note that this company was bought out in 2013 and no longer exists as an independent entity, so its long term, encyclopedic notability is in doubt.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep This article has survived an AfD debate in the past as well as a merge request. This company was the designer of many globally recognizable displays, perhaps most notably the spatula-shaped door handles found on the front doors of every Burger King. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 21:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the previous AfD debate? I only see a prod.104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete entirely lacking notability, as there are not adequate sources to establish this. Dubious possible COI background. There are simply no valid reasons to keep this article.104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete zero indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Digital Brands

Digital Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article on a ocmpany that falls well below WP:CORP. Sources are all churnalism and nothing obvious to improve on them, though the search is a mess because the name is actually rather generic. Created and lovingly maintained by a probable paid editor. Guy (Help!) 01:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I originally authored two articles for subsidiary websites of this company of which I am a reader, and both were deleted on notability grounds. I wrote this article for the company as a whole in an effort to merge information together rather than having it deleted, and because the company as a whole is more notable than its individual web properties (WP:DOM). I would like to point out that some meaningful sources were removed from this article by User:JzG, the person who put it up for deletion, as he cleaned out content from the article. I would encourage anyone considering this article for deletion to consider restoring the content this editor removed as it adds to the case to keep the article. I will not do this myself out of respect for the community consensus process. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 07:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Steevven1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete No coverage and no independent coverage of the company. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment To state that there is "no independent coverage" is a bit dishonest, since there is a newspaper article from The Gainesville Sun cited with this company and its owner as the sole topic of coverage. There were some less important sources cited before, but they have been removed by the editor who put this article up for deletion. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 04:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. A good faith search turned up no viable information that met WP:SIGCOV.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The following are independent sources who have written about this company and its subsidiary websites: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Additionally, a Google search for any of the subsidiary sites yields many hits from notable sources. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 18:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Steevven1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Usualy I assume Good faith, but what you say above is either a) outright deceptive, or b) a complete failure to understand WP:RS. Third link does not even mention the article subject. PRnewswire? Come on. The |Gainsville biz report site has a handy button for submitting your stories in their masthead. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete sketchy sourcing in article and in a general search. Possible promotional effort, see COIN discussion.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable independent sources. Does not meet WP:CORP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, this article might deserve deletion. I can accept that premise. But Wikipedia editors at AfD need to stop with the hyperbole. There is definitively at least one reliable, independent source on this article: The Gainesville Sun. I don't understand how someone could say that there are "none." Thank you for your input and contribution though. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 14:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And that is clearly based on a press release, so does not qualify as independent. I've placed dozens of similar articles. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely zero indications of notability, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotions and is not a yellow pages. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirects can be created editorially. Sandstein 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

10th Channel i Music Awards

10th Channel i Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article among a large list created by a highly disruptive editor who was blocked. Non notable award with no reliable sources. Hagennos^Talk 00:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages of similar articles created by the disruptive editor.: This is being discussed at Administrator's Noticeboard

11th Channel i Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

12th Channel i Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4th CMC Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5th CMC_Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6th CMC Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7th CMC Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect for 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th CMC Music Awards to parent article, CMC Music Awards, or to the Country Music Channel, itself. Note that CMC is not spelled out in these articles, nor is its ownership by Foxtel acknowledged. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2018. I forgot to sign this, sorry.03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all. Non notable award ceremony, articles created by disruptive (now banned) user. Ajf773 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete All, concur with nom - Non notable award with no reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 23:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

United Airports Georgia

United Airports Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references since 2011. No updates since 2012. A BEFORE search turns up nothing useful. Rhadow (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I can't speak for the Georgian language references, but the others look good. Rhadow (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the airports themselves presumably have articles or should, which covers all that really matters about the government owned company thst run them. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, if all the airports have articles, then wouldn't that make this more notable? The fact that the article hasn't been updated since 2012 doesn't mean that we should get rid of it, plenty of articles on Wikipedia have been basically "edited only by bots" for over a decade that are stubs. In it's current state it could be considered a list article which doesn't need to be referenced. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. This article needs to pass organizational notability standards. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable organization, no references outside of the organization's webpage, sources on Georgian language webpage not much help either. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Airport authorities for countries are always notable and the stub-article can be improved. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Airport authorities are automatically notable, overriding WP:V? Rhadow (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - I've rewritten it and added references, which should be enough for a stub. It's a national airport operator, and thus notable. The article is mistitled - it shd be "United Airports of Georgia" - but I'll not move it at the moment. There is a problem locating press coverage (apart from most of it being in Georgian) in that the title is translated into English in many different ways: Georgian Airports Association, Union of Airports of Georgia plus many other variations, but nevertheless I have trouble believing that any effective BEFORE could have been carried out, as I deliberately limited my own search to sources using the official form "United Airports of Georgia", which any search would have brought up.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The issues have been addressed. Thank-you. I've moved the page and I belive this can be kept now. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has apparently been improved. Without consulting previous versions, it seems fine, and is indeed functioning as a list-article and as a summary about the organization. It is useful to have in one place to be linked from each of the 5 airports that it owns, rather than having to restate the entire text in each of the 5 articles. --Doncram (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the SPAs/IPs, there is only one "keep" opinion. Sandstein 23:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Thompson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jonathan Thompson
• Articles for deletion/Jonathan Thompson (2nd nomination)

Jonathan Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apart from a single article in a local newspaper, I'm unable to find any substantial coverage of this individual in reliable sources, as is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The article as it was before being cut down by an SPA noted that he had also been a presenter on Nickolodeon (also referred to in one of the two surviving references [48]), and worked as a journalist. One of the deleted references says that the BBC made a documentary about his early business career. There's still footage available of TV spots about him around the same time [49]. The article retains some early poor writing and there are certainly challenges, not least linkrot and common first and last names, but he seems notable. Mortee (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I checked the refs in the old revision noted by the user above, they don't indicate notability, they are unrelated, 404s or primary. Lots of vandalism confusing the matter - he even had a huge customer complaint email on an old revision. Szzuk (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Sources checked and return no 404 URL's, content sourced from legitimate sources, perhaps just needs a tidy up and not removal. See comments from Mortee. Northds (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"keep" its now quite obvious based on recent edits and citations this chap is noteworthy and his contribution to the arcade community significate his article is quality "b" class on the wiki scale and should not be removed as biography of living persons regardless article needs to remain there have now been some recent changes to the artcles sorces it seems this person is indeed noteworthy KEEP is my opinion and to stop making changes without the correct research clearly this person is noteworthy based on the new edits made KEEP keep its quite obvious this person is note worthy from the new editd and changes made to the article the person has several articles now and correct citations and links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro arcade (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Retro arcade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s quite obvious after the edits made to the profile that this person is noteworthy KEEP is my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro arcade (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Regarding the nomination rationale - it does appear there is more than one mention in local newspapers - but even so, local papers cover the most trivial of local human interest stories so count for little. With only these and primary sources, I see no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

“Keep” This is nonsnse it’s quite obvious the person is noteworthy and citations are quite valid regardless of what you see the evidence is clear and has been for many years looking at the citations it’s very clear lancashire evening post as part of trinity press along with Yorkshire evening post are quite reliable sources regardless of what you may or may not think unless you are and expert in the Arcade field it’s hard for you to make any judgement either way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.105.13.56 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC) — 31.105.13.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This is some of the most obvious IP socking I can recall seeing. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

“Keep”Again the article as been rated as a class b and biography of living individuals perhaps the article could use generally tidying however not deletion there are Tv appearances which have clearly been made and significant contribution in the arcade field made by this person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro arcade (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have struck out a double !vote. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Shaheen Siddique

Shaheen Siddique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC - Lack of independent sources. All cited sources are unreliable and passing mentions, except the TOI published before his debut, because he is the son of Siddique (actor), but notability is not inherited. He is yet to establish notability as an actor. --Let There Be Sunshine 15:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep finding plenty of coverage between cites in article and those found hitting "news" link above. Articles such as here discussing this subject and hia roles. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet as the roles are all minor. The link offered above is a routine news item, which underscores that the subject is not yet notable:

• "...The director confirms that Shaheen is indeed part of the film, which has an ensemble cast and is one of the pivotal characters in the film. The movie also has Kunchacko Boban, Nedumudi Venu, Nyla Usha and Ketaki Narayan."

This is not WP:SIGCOV as required for BLPs. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, is mentioned by 5 (five) different sources and twice by two of them. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 09:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• So 3 sources only mention him twice, and the other 2 twice? This sounds like passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The only references are passing mentions of him starting his acting career. The fact that he is the son of a notable actor does not grant notability as WP:NOTINHERITED. An article is justified if he has sustained coverage, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON --Hagennos^Talk 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Found some more coverage on him here: The Hindu, The Hindu, DesiMartini, Deccan Chronicle. This along with the references shared above and on the page makes a pretty compelling case. I'm sure, if tried, we will also find other articles in local language newspapers. Mr RD 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Philly Special

Philly Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A single play of a single game is not notable by itself unless there is some broader emphasis on a rule change like Tuck Rule Game or Holy Roller (American football). This should be redirected to the Super Bowl game in which it happened. Just because it helped them win the game, like every other scoring play did during the game, it’s hardly a reason to create an entire article for a single scoring play. JOJ ^Hutton 00:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Pennsylvania2. The person who calls for this page to be deleted is wrong. The Eagles would not have won the Super Bowl without this play. Further, it shows Coach Doug Pederson's aggressiveness and how it won him a Super Bowl. Aggressiveness is going to become more common in the league as a result of this play, which has been noted by many NFL experts. The filing of a trademark by 8 different groups including the Philadelphia Eagles, shows that this is very notable. Also, plays that changed a game, including the "Minneapolis Miracle", "Immaculate Reception", "Helmet Catch", "Beast Quake" and "Miracle at the Meadowlands" all have Wikipedia pages. While they did not have a direct impact on the rulebook they had a direct impact on the game, similar to the Philly Special. Many users have worked on this page and added details that it would be counterproductive to delete this article. Also, the play received lots of coverage from the sports media. Finally, the controversy following this play makes it worthy of an article. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• While I agree this page should be kept (see below), saying this play changed the game is absolutely absurd, considering it was in the second quarter, the Eagles were leading before the play, and the Eagles would later give up that lead. Most of the other pages you mention are dissimilar to the Philly Special page in the fact that those ones are directly and solely responsible for the outcome of the game, while the Philly Special play is simply a touchdown scored on a relatively common trick play. Frank Anchor^Talk 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, look at Helmet Catch. While I'm not trying to pull a purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS vote here, similar to that play there's more to this one that is giving it continued notability after the Super Bowl is over. For example that trademark battle going on over the term. If the play was just a single event fading into the wind like most things brought to AFD for similar reasons, there wouldn't be much debate over it continuing all over the place. Also, people are still debating the legality after the fact. Another factor is that this play created a Super Bowl record that never even existed beforehand to break, most touchdown passes (1 lol) caught by a quarterback in a Super Bowl. I'd link to some previous AFDs I found, but I fear that would reduce my comment into an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 01:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Seen a lot of newspaper articles on this play specifically, even after the event, and while coverage'll fade as time goes on, I think this passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Notable play, the play and this name are given a lot of coverage in outside reliable sources (including a cover story in Sports Illustrated with the play name as its title), and the fact that several organizations are attempting to trademark "Philly Special." Frank Anchor^Talk 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It's notable enough that the Philadelphia Eagles are filing a trademark to the "Philly Special" phrase [50] and that this play solidified Nick Foles' household name status forever. Dwscomet (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG, and enough potential expansion remains where it'd be a shame to pare down and merge into Super Bowl LII. Two weeks after the game, Sports Illustrated had an extensive writeup on the origins of the play: "‘Philly Special’ Was Drawn Up By a Mad-Scientist Coach on a South Carolina Baseball Field in 2011".—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Significant media coverage focused on that individual play. As others have pointed out, it easily satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep this is one of the most shocking and memorable play calls in NFL history. It will live in NFL Lore and was the most amazing play in the most offensive heavy super bowl ever. 144.126.126.150 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This is one of the most surprising and shocking plays in NFL history. This play was a major factor in helping the Philadelphia Eagles defeat the New England Patriots 41–33 to win Super Bowl LII. There is still significant enough coverage of the play by multiple notable sources. Some notable sources include this article from The New York Times, this article from USA TODAY and this article from ESPN. My point is that there are plenty of secondary sources that adequately cover the play that should justify keeping this article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This play is going to be replayed over and over for a very long time. It's cemented as a part of NFL and Super Bowl lore.Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Weak keep I am concerned about WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTNEWS here, and I do wish this article had been created a bit later to let us get some kind of sense of the long-tern historical impact this play is going to have. But, realistically, given what was at stake here, this is probably going to be the type of play that winds up being deserving of it's own article. And, the play itself has gotten plenty of coverage, like this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo DS homebrew

Nintendo DS homebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The majority of the article is WP:OR guide about how to get flash cartridges working. I searched for sources, but most of the pertinent articles have long since disappeared from the Internet entirely. It's possible someone who takes a deep dive into the Internet Archive might be able to make a notable article, but what's here right now might require WP:TNT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

*Keep This is a real and very relevant part of early electronic gaming culture. This is arguably one of the foundations of computer security and digital piracy. You should fix any issues with it rather than deleting it, to which I say that WP:TNTTNT is the correct essay for this situation. Pokemonsgone (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC) globally locked LTA. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• The problem with that argument is that there is already a "hacking and homebrew" section in the Nintendo DS article (although it might be better off moved to Nintendo DS family) which can accommodate the sources that actually exist. There is no need for an entire separate article. At least, no need that has been proven as of yet._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ok that's fine, but it would be easier for someone to source an existing article than to build a new one from scratch. My preference would be to keep at least the history, that can be best done by keeping the article as a redirect, so maybe a redirect like: REDIRECT Nintendo DS#Hacking and homebrew would be a good way to deal with it, especially as this is a valid search term. Pokemonsgone (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC) globally locked LTA. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, per the wording of the nomination, it doesn't say that the article is not notable, only that most sources that report on it have disappeared (linkrot) ,v and re-wording the article is something most people can do so this seems more like a case of "this article is encyclopedic but I personally don't want to put the effort in it". --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 09:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're right in that I don't have time to put the effort into it, but I don't see how that makes the current page any more encyclopedic and worthy of keeping. Especially since there is already a section on it elsewhere where one could put any sourced material, there is no need to have a full unreferenced article for it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Looking at the article's citations via archive.org, I found that none of them are suitable for establishing notability. They're all primary links to source repositories, wikis, or blog posts, all of which fail WP:GNG. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• There's quite a few sources on DS homebrew in the VG search engine. What's in the article is currently garbage, I agree, but I think the topic might be notable. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources present in the CSE. Sure, the current article is a piece of crap, if someone blows it up and starts over, it could actually become a good-looking article. I mean, look at GameCube online functionality just a few months ago, compared to now. JOEBRO64 22:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Al-Sahawat Times

Al-Sahawat Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Just like the IPMG News article (recently deleted) and the The International Press and Media Group currently at AfD, the only sources are affiliated. Article created by a WP:SPA and edited by SPA and by a banned sockpuppet, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. AfD and PROD notices are being removed by User talk:86.187.31.9 and a brand new SPA User talk:Toni W. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP

The above states “all sources are affiliated” yet there are clearly sources from a wide variety of notable third party sources such as radio shows, government records, copyright registers and many other independent sources. Not really sure why such random and inaccurate taggin with AfD is allowed but oh well. Clearly not a genuine AfD tag in any way. 85.255.234.132 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC) — 85.255.234.132 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP the reasons given by in the AfD have nothing in reality and zero truth. All references are perfectly fine and multiple third party references from government sources included. Not affiliated in any way. A clearly notable and worth while article being repeatedly targeted by sock puppet user high King and his many aliases. If there are issues with this page it should be improved rather than deleted as is Wikipedia protocol this AfF notice makes no sense at all and should be removed. 85.255.234.132 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC) — 85.255.234.132 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD.

• Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• How can you strike a "vote" if this is not a vote? It's handy to see "keep" repeated here as it simply indicates the nature of the argument, not "a vote". --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 10:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:TPO and WP:AFDFORMAT. Sam Sailor 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP

Agreed with above. The above states “all sources are affiliated” yet there are clearly sources from a wide variety of notable third-party sources such as radio shows, government records, copyright registers and many other independent sources. Not really sure why such random and inaccurate tagging with AfD is allowed but oh well. Clearly not a genuine AfD tag in any way. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP

It should be improved rather than deleted. — Ann Cane (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone who doesn't look suspiciously like a sock comment please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that the subject is notable. Of the sources cited:

• [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] and [56] are pages on the organisation's website and not independent
• [57] is the website of a sister publication owned by the same organisation and also not independent
• [58] and [59] are podcasts and therefore not reliable sources
• [60] is the company's Twitter account, not independent or reliable
• [61] is the official record of the company's registration in the UK, as literally every registered company in the UK has one of these it is meaningless for determining notability (not to mention the fact that it is based on information provided by the company in the first place)
• [62] is a directory listing, I suspect the text is based on information provided by the company and directory listings aren't considered significant by WP:CORP
• [63] appears to be a dead link but it looks like another directory listing.

I can't find any significantly better sources myself. As the company links prominently to this article on their website I suspect that some of the people defending it here have a conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I couldn't sum up the sources better myself. Likewise I see no evidence that this company/newspaper is notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Kinryū Arimoto

Kinryū Arimoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable VA; stub in JP Wiki. MizukaS (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Rafael Casal

Rafael Casal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No substantive claim to notability: associated with one group that has no article and a minor indie film (potential redirect target?). Created and edited almost entirely by WP:SPAs, increasingly obviously associated with the subject, the last one being entirely open about this and edit-warring over content he does not like (which may well be entirely justified). Sources are either not independent, or not reliable, most are just churnalism. I tried to find anything matching the Wikipedia sourcing trifecta of "reliable, independent, secondary", but washed out (maybe my Google-fu is weak today), but in the end this looks like a PR biography that is more trouble than it's worth. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A lot of the coverage out there relates to the film ([64], [65], [66], [67]), but co-writing and starring in a notable film is a reasonable claim to notability. Other coverage also exists: [68], [69], [70], [71]. Overall, possibly enough coverage of his body of work to justify inclusion. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not as such, no, but it's good grounds for a redirect. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - All bar one of the references are self-published. No third party claims to support notability. Feels like a personal fluff page, not an encyclopaedic article. If there is notability there it's incredibly minor, the fact some people mention you on the internet or you self-publish stuff does not notability make. Feel that it fails basic notability criteria. Canterbury Tail talk 23:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are four independent sources mentioned right above your !vote.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep If you read Michig's !vote above, specifically the last four sources mentioned, it's clear that there are are indeed numerous independent RS sources. They are not fabulous, but they do point to notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not fabulous, and they are also not about the subject. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why they keep mentioning the subject's name, with sentences about him following the name. This Variety article seems to talk about him. Strange.104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

To wit: "Casal’s videos caught the attention of Jess Calder (then Jess Wu). The young producer, partnered in Snoot with her husband, Keith Calder, had seen a couple of his spoken-word performances and was struck by both Casal’s charisma and the fact that he appeared to be a natural-born storyteller.

“In my mind, anyone who can tell a great story can definitely translate that to film,” explains the producer, who contacted Casal and proposed they meet for coffee. She asked if he’d ever thought about writing a screenplay.

“I’d thought about theater a lot, [but at that age] you’re trying to get $5 for something at McDonald’s. A movie is millions of dollars away,” says Casal. But he was definitely intrigued, and began fleshing out a character that was loosely autobiographical. Things started to click about a year and a half later, when the Snoot duo asked Casal to perform at a screening of their documentary “Thunder Soul” at a January 2009 presidential inauguration event in Washington, D.C. Casal couldn’t make it but suggested they book Diggs in his place." From the Variety article. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an interview (WP:PRIMARY) and it's about the film, not him. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong delete The sources here are all rubbish, and the presented additional sources just mention this person in passing at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all current sources are self-published by the subject of the article; other sources relate to the particular independent film and not about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• delete I see non-independent sources and passing mentions, but nothing to convince me he meets WP:GNG or any other notability requirement.Sandals1 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note:Sandals1 blocked as a sockpuppet. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong delete agreeing with above; poorly sourced and excessively self-aggrandizing; WP:PROMOTION WP:NTEMP WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7183:3900:1C60:C842:763D:C8E1 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — 2604:2000:7183:3900:1C60:C842:763D:C8E1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Netherwood School

Netherwood School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability Freshman404^Talk 14:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete lacks sources to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I've added a couple of sources but there's just not enough there. Also, looks like the article is a copyvio from this Wordpress site. Tacyarg (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and not enough sources. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
  _contribs) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a very difficult close due to the high number of participants that can be said to have either a pro-India or pro-Pakistan POV. On balance, I am persuaded that the article does have a strong POV and large parts are a content fork. Many have brought up the WP:ATD argument that it is better to improve than delete. Against that others have argued, per WP:TNT, that it is better to start over with a clean page. On this point I am particularly influenced by the research of Gazoth into the quality of the refs. To argue that the page should be improved presupposes that there are sources from which an improvement can be built. Many sources have been put forward, but no reliable, neutral source has been presented that discusses RAW in Pakistan in detail as a subject. To be sure, there are sources out there that discuss individual actions of RAW, but no scholarly source giving a balanced overview of the whole subject that could be used as the basis of a neutral article has been put forward. It is not essential to have such sources to build an article, it is possible to construct an article from sources that are not neutral and do not cover the whole subject, but this is much harder. It would need an editor of unquestionable neutrality to achieve that, and there would still be a need for at least one source that treated the title as a subject in itself to show notability. SpinningSpark 23:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RAW activities in Pakistan

RAW activities in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. Has been proposed for deletion multiple times but the same editor insists that they have "balanced" this article. Much of the article is based on speculation and large parts of it are either poorly sourced or unsourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How is the India Today (newspaper) a Pakistani newspaper? One of my references is India Today newspaper. Let the Wikipedia designated staff decide after they look at the article what the facts are. You clearly say on your User page that you are from Bombay, India. How can you be the ONLY JUDGE about this article's fate? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ngrewal1 Another independent editor GeneralizationsAreBad had also marked this page as a POV fork earlier (a year ago) and proposed it for deletion. You were the same editor who had removed it then by adding some "references" from Pakistani newspapers. Even now after it was proposed for deletion a year later you again removed it by adding more references from Pakistani newspapers and a single line from an Indian newspaper. Please look at WP:NPOV which this article grossly violates. Also, have a look at the Research and Analysis Wing article where most of this is covered with WP:DUE weight age. Now, when it comes to my nationality, please be careful about your wording. I don't claim to be a judge of anything and have thus bought this at a common forum. If you doubt the effectiveness of this forum then I cannot help you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Article written to promote a specific POV and fails WP:NEUTRAL. Already covered under Research and Analysis Wing. --Hagennos^Talk 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• SNOW KEEP The nom should peruse WP:BEFORE. There are numerous academic sources that discuss this in detail. For example India: Foreign Policy & Government Guide, Volume 1 , What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979 89 by Bruce Riedel , India's External Intelligence: Secrets of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) by V. K. Singh , International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Karl R. DeRouen, Paul Bellamy etc. etc. Elektricity (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a hastily put up list of references. The second and fourth references don't have more than a few lines about Research and Analysis Wing itself and make a passing reference to Pakistan. The first and third references contain some more information again which is about in general Research and Analysis Wing. if there is some information which can be integrated with the main article with no reason to maintain this fork. I am yet to see any form of substantial information which can sustain an independent article and cannot be added in the main one. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80 Your argument for deletion was The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. I have shown you multiple academic sources discussing RAW activities within Pakistan, hence rendering the deletion argument null and void. You claim that information from these sources (and perhaps the 32 thousand other book results as well) can be incorporated in the main article, but I disagree. The main should focus on RAW and its day to day business, with a prolonged operational history in Pakistan; this should have been forked a long time ago. Your Second argument that you made in a comment is that the article may vioate POV forking. This is again, I'm afraid, not true. The article does not point to anything as fact, which is common in articles about clandestine agencies. Rather it says what the reliable sources have said and then attributes the information to reliable sources. As I said , you should have read WP:BEFORE. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources you point are about Research and Analysis Wing and not it's activities in Pakistan. I can "find" references for many things but the question also remains do we have enough neutral reliable content which is needed for an individual article or can it be incorporated in the original one. You haven't shown any significant content here which merits a separate one. Just running a quick keyword search on Google Books is not going to work. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep of course. Nominator hasn't explained what is POVFORK about the topic. Issues about article material, if any, should be taken to the talk. That's not what WP:AFD is for. So far as the topic is concerned, it meets WP:GNG from all criteria. There's a long history of espionage and cross-border intelligence from India to Pakistan, and it's covered in all reliable, academic sources. The cases of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Ravindra Kaushik, Sarabjit Singh and Kashmir Singh are amongst the most notable ones to merit mention. And at the international and diplomatic level, Pakistan and India have for decades traded allegations on RAW activities, right from the heads of state to military and government levels. So there is no question as far as notability is concerned, and this article is of equivalent scale to topics like ISI activities in India, CIA activities in India etc. Mar4d (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, may be the article needs expanding to become more readable, but compering it with Research and Analysis Wing isn't correct. The latter concentrates on the organization itself, where this one is more specific. Why need a separate article? Well, enough coverage exists for this topic to qualify WP:GNG.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POVFORK per nominator. The above WP:OSE argument for pursuing NPOV violation makes it even easier to a ackowledge why this article should be deleted. — MapSGV (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to see you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing. Perhaps if you had actually also read WP:OSE, you would have known it's an essay, and more fittingly, the following: The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in other. The argument about notability stands and you have not dis-proven it. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources never establish notability however... — MapSGV (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Expand Research and Analysis Wing if you want, but I am sure much of the content of this POV fork can get rejected there too. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy delete clear WP:CFORK of Research and Analysis Wing that was created by an SPA[72] to promote a POV. Lorstaking (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Non-notable subject, creation also seems suspicious. Capitals00 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the article on RAW, India's intelligence agency (or stubify). As Pakistan is India's most likely military opponent (if it goes to war), Pakistan must inevitably be a major focus for India's spying. This is a horrid article, which seems to be built on Pakistan's arrest of two alleged spies. If that is what they are, the article will still only be dealing with a snippet of what RAW musty be doing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Not enough sources or coverage to pass GNG. Either way it is only based on some heavily disputed allegations and article itself reads like WP:SYNTH. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, article is ill-sourced, POV article treating as fact Pakistani government allegations that the government o of India is supporting Baloch "terrorism" in Pakistan. Here's a little backgorund form the BBC: What lies behind Pakistani charges of Indian 'terrorism'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue is gaining greater momentum these days. Quite notable in the region, so it should be a keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  06:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Then why we have no reliable sources to confirm it? Can you address the issues raised above regarding lack of notability? — MapSGV (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just mentioned 6 more reliable sources. There are many actually, if you search them.  M A A Z   T A L K  07:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not scholarly. You need to find totally independent ones. MapSGV (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned many references now. Most references are international or scholarly. Only 5 or 6 references mentioned are from Pakistan news media. 23-24 are exclusive of Paki references.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I looked at your references. Most of them still state the same thing "according to Pakistan". Also, please do due diligence when you add references. For one, you literally added someones comment in the comment section as a reference here. Just don't google and add, please spend some time in reading the reference you are adding. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I haven't found the according to Pakistan words in may references. Secondly, if an international news channel mentions a Pakistani narrative, it doesn't mean that its an unreliable source, but on the contrary, it adds to notability.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. —MBL ^Talk 08:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no content there that cannot be covered in Research and Analysis Wing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Merge - add and update Research and Analysis Wing, this does not need to stand alone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the article is as notable as other related articles like Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India etc. The fork-based arguments are seemingly are quite close to WP:ITSCRUFT and then there is WP:ATD.  samee  ^talk 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yours is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT because you are using WP:OSE argument and thinking that it becomes automatically notable just because there is another similar article, which is actually notable. This WP:POVFORK is not notable. — MapSGV (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure as if your pretzelling ain't WP:IDL. I don't get your bludgeoning to keep !votes, you've already made your point, why such a desperation.  samee  ^talk 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Should I WP:ILIKE a multiple times prodded article? If I had, then your reaction would be just different but I am fine. Right now every comment is up for debate and you can also debate until things AFD is over. — MapSGV (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep by WP:GNG. We can always dig out non-Pakistani sources to protect NPOV. A topic like RAW activities in Pakistan seems nothing difficult.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It fails WP:GNG. You are suggesting that we should abandon concerns of this article and work on them in future.. why not now? By deleting the POVFORK. — MapSGV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - I am seeing the article has been expanded since the nomination but now it looks like an WP:OR and still remains a non-notable WP:POVFORK. desmay (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

34 references mentioned. Probably 5-6 references each paragraph. How is this OR work?  M A A Z   T A L K  00:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Because all of those references fail to describe the importance of this trivia. By your own comment it seems that you have worked on over citing references than actually providing any relevant references, but that's not really possible because subject is itself not qualified for own article. — MapSGV (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not much of what you are saying makes sense to me. I have worked on citing references than actually providing references? that is quite contradictory. And references, especially international sources and google books doesn't fail to describe importance of an article, but on the contrary it adds to their importance. I think you are being slightly inconsistent here.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - individual issues can be discussed without resorting to total deletion of the page. Also agree with user samee ‘s reasoning above.Willard84 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues are with failure of notability, WP:POVFORKing none of which can be addressed without deletion. — MapSGV (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There’s a lot of at least alleged activity and information, especially in regards to recent events with Jadhav. I retain my view as keep.Willard84 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and merge to Research and Analysis Wing: I see no reason why this subject meets GNG when it is just a WP:CFORK, largely depending on two allegations refuted by everyone. It also seems to be a violation of WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. I recommend merging this into the "Research and Analysis Wing" article, where we can devote an appropraite amount of space to it. A separate article is WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, POV. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nominator that this is a WP:POVFORK. The article only focuses on a single viewpoint of RAW involvement, in spite of many refs giving substantial weight to opinions that accusations have been made to cover-up internal issues. ([73], [74], [75], [76]). A substantial part of article is either a list of accusations or statements of Indian involvement in general rather than RAW specifically. There are also multiple sourcing issues in the article including statement contradicted by reference placed near it ([77]), op-ed used as a ref ([78]), news reports on other reports used to artificially inflate ref count ([79] reports on [80], [81] reports on [82]), usage of opinions from fringe theorists ([83] from a 9/11 truther) and using WikiLeaks ref to cite an unreliable website ([84] originally from [85]). The remaining well-sourced content can added to Research and Analysis Wing article. —Gazoth (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a reason to delete the article. An article should be neutral and feel free to add/remove the content with the references you want to add or remove. I haven't mentioned non-reliable sources.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious POVFORK. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep My formal !vote for this article is still 'keep' after a thoughtful consideration besides the above first 'Comment' in this discussion by me. If there is room for articles on Pakistani intelligence agencies (Pakistan's ISI etc.) on Wikipedia, then we all know Wikipedia's policy is all about 'striking balance' and being fair. That's exactly why I attempted to improve the article when I first saw it nominated for deletion on 24 February 2018. I still hope and ask that people who wish to 'keep' it as an article, are given a chance to improve it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ngrewal1 Please let's set the records straight if we are going there (not that it matters). I looked at the history of the page and this not the first time you have de-prodded the article. The article was also proposed for deletion (by GeneralizationsAreBad[86]) on 11 July 2017 a day after it was created. You removed this on 16 July 2017([87]) and inserted a few Pakistan newspaper sources. It's been more than 8 months now and only more POV content was added to it prompting me to propose it (after I came across it) for deletion again. This was again removed by you by adding a few more Pakistan newspaper sources. Also, on your second comment, WP:GNG is not inherited or associative per WP:OTHERCONTENT and this was even said by Ma'az (user maing the same point below) on a AFD sometime ago ([88]). I wonder why does that argument change now. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Our main argument is, because the article is notable and passes WP:GNG, its notability is proved. You are misinterpretting by bringing in WP:OSE. Look if a person says that article Canada should be created because article USA exists, it doesn't mean that main point for article Canada is WP:OSE. Main point is WP:GNG, and after that we are calling for consistency. And you mentioned WP:OTHERCONTENT, it reads "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".And about my famous AFD :) (as it was featured by media) :) i think even you know that you are trying to confuse one thing with another. That article was on a biography which is a different discussion.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend you to go back and read your argument once again since it seems very incoherent to me. You go from WP:GNG to consistency to explaining how connecting this to WP:OTHERCONTENT is per policy. But you forget to mention that WP:OTHERCONTENT also states that is comparison can only be made "with Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating" and should be "compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research". This article is definitely not NPOV as pointed by multiple editors and quite a few of the references itself are questionable as pointed by others and what WP:RSN has told you about Wikileaks. Second, the point on WP:GNG, you are mis-associating the WP:GNG of R&AW with the topic of this article. WP:OTHERCONTENT argument is valid in all subject discussions, unless you don't want to see it or are ignoring it. Lastly what you mean by our main argument. You are here to make your personal argument, not represent others. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing inconsistent, I just said that WP:OSE is valid under WP:GNG, just like an article about Canada is valid if USA exists. And to WP:NPOV, look we all know that in political issues(especially bipartisan issues) on Wikipedia, its almost impossible that the article would be 100% neutral (that's why there are edit conflicts on political issues almost everyday), as a reliable source from one country might be opposite to a reliable source of another (that's why the article mentions mostly foreign sources and google books), so its not that non-neutral. And I don't get why you cannot edit the article just like User:FloridaArmy did here [89] and User:Adamgerber80 did here[90], Nobody challenged their edit. You can also edit the article and can also use WP:ATD. And about WikiLeaks, the RSN agreed that a WikiLeaks source can be mentioned with another RS(good context), in the article, Reference 11 (WikiLeaks source) is mentioned with reference 10 & reference 19 with 21.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because a a few foreign media/Wikileaks mentions that "according to Pakistani officials or Pakistani newspapers" does not make it neutral. It is still POV since they are directly quoting Pakistan here. Here is one in non-Pakistani media which is the interview of a Pakistani minister, another mentions that "Pakistan has complained", yet another states that "Pakistan officials accuse", another says "blamed by Pakistani authorities". And these are not Pakistan newspapers but foreign media sources you have used. I am sorry if you cannot see the POV which multiple other editors can. Also, by your comments that not all article are neutrals are betrays that even you think that the article is not truly NPOV. FloridaArmy My comment might answer some of your questions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, good point by User:Ngrewal1. If similar pages like ISI activities in India can survive, then what's wrong with this page? Inconsistent criteria is a sign of a failed argument. Wikipedia is not inconsistent.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE for a non-notable POV fork? It's a bad argument. — MapSGV (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not absolutely invalid criteria. It can be valid and in this case, the article is as notable as its equivalent; Wikipedia should be consistent. Consistency is the hall-mark of any reasoned discussion.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - In my opinion, the current version of the article fails WP:NPOV, a core policy. The subject is notable and is briefly covered in the main article, this fork could be useful, but after a weak at AfD, the lede sentense and background sections are still, I feel, strongly POV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To the WP:NPOV argument, i would say that, this can be improved via WP:ATD. Wikipedia always say, that if an article could be saved from deletion by an alternative, the alternative shud be used.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Tagging for NPOV is not a permanent solution. Given this is a fork, it isn't clear why it should be mantained in its current state given our readers might be better served by the operations and controversies section in the base article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting articles is also not a solution especially those that are notable. Multiple reliable sources mentioned.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this is not an article about RAW (The Indian intelligence services) activities in Pakistan. It is an article about accusations against RAW by Pakistani officials. It is a clear POV fork. I don't see how it is redeemable. The subject is best covered in the main article. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think RAW's activity in relation to TTP, Balochistan, CPEC, ISI is quite significant and well established by many sources(including foreign). However, in political and especially bipartisan issues, one can always raise this point, that its all accusations. A source saying Pakistani officials have shared a video, doesn't mean that its accusation, it means its a proof of RAW activity. Webster Tarpley, James Dobbins, Praveen Swami, and many other authors, all these are quite significant mentions.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Which Indian sources have you cited? How about non-Pakistani sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment For users arguing for merge into the main article, they still need to explain how it would be feasible taking into account content size per WP:SPLITTING. It would be impossible to merge and expand such large amount of content, unless you want the RAW article to mostly be about Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, far too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved. Would be good to get neutral views. Mar4d (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not true. An attempt to generally discount those editors who have not agrred with Mar4d's views. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork. Also WP:Undue. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No explanation of how it is either, another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting. Mar4d (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is one of Mar4d's standard attacks pn the vote of an Indian voter. :) AshLin (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Where have I attacked anyone? I have just stated my observation on the lack of clarification with regards to many of these votes. Mar4d (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I would lean keep and want a improved article. I agree with User:Elekricity. There is definitely an Indian WP:CABAL who is flooding the nom with 'Speedy delete' and 'delete' votes. Can you tell me why 'speedy delete'? They're only trying to influence the result. I suggest the closing admin to through check the rationale and even discount Pakistani and Indian votes. There are two or three Pakistani users who voted 'keep' but dozens of Indian users who are actually cabal try to influence every discussion: be it Kashmir, Rape in India or Violence in India against Muslims. I think this discussion need more neutral votes from western perspective. It is similar in nature to article, ISI activities in India or other place. Please don't be bias and work to improve WP. There are less Pakistani users so don't take advantage from it. Thanks. 119.160.116.141 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - There are plenty of book sources. Whatever the current article quality, it doesn't merit deletion. Now that the article is in the limelight it could be brought to Wikipedia quality and policy standards. For example:

1. "There are also some indications that the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Indian intelligence agency, may be involved in fomenting terrorism, sectarian and otherwise, in different parts of Pakistan, particularly in Karachi and Balochistan."

2. "On January 29, 1999, an Indian saboteur, Subhash Chander, was apprehended by the security agencies of Pakistan for carrying out bomb blasts in Sialkot. The then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, brought this Indian activity to the notice of the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, who was on a visit to Pakistan."

3. "RAW reports to the Prime Minister and is reportedly involved in disinformation campaigns, espionage and sabotage against Pakistan and other countries. Throughout the Soviet/Afghan War the RAW was responsible for the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Pakistan to deter Pakistan from support of Afghan liberation movement against India's ally, the Soviet Union." --39.48.42.250 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning these sources in the article.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable tertiary source. No authors listed. Not a repued publisher. Lacks even a website. AshLin (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Authors are mentioned and the sources are reliable. I think there is high skepticism going on over sources. Its like you are finding reasons to somehow belittle an authentic source.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Julian Hoxter

Julian Hoxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of Fails WP:GNG. references are Imdb, his publisher &c. Not convincing; a search threw up nothing more solid. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Umchina

Umchina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A Korean word, allegedly. It is unverifiable (WP:V). The article does not cite any references that define this concept, and I don't find any reliable English-language sources addressing it. I don't read Korean, so somebody who does might have better luck. Sandstein 16:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. by Anthony Bradbury per G7. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 12:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bond 25 (upcoming film)

Bond 25 (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bond 25 redirects to James Bond in film, clearly a case of WP:Too Soon.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 25. It's still WP:TOOSOON, and there's nothing to merge in this latest attempt. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment also please note that this article was created some hours after the same editor created Untitled James Bond Twenty-fifth film, and a few minutes after creating Bond 25 (film) and Bond 25 (upcoming film). Since the editor is clearly not acting in good faith, all three should be speedy deleted, per db-g4. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mick Gerace

Mick Gerace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable performer; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO . No notable albums or awards. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not enough people have taken part in the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Radio Wey

Radio Wey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article references non-notable sources, and was created by a likely undisclosed COI editor. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much else. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it better than this. Under WP:NMEDIA, the only notability claim that a radio station actually has to make to be keepable is that it exists as a properly licensed radio station that originates at least some of its own programming — it doesn't need to make any claim that would make it a special "more notable than other radio stations" case, as our goal for radio stations is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all of them. But "as feasibly possible" is the operative part of that equation, because NMEDIA doesn't extend radio stations an exemption from having to be reliably sourced — they still have to be the subject of at least some coverage in media other than their own self-published content about themselves — but there's virtually no evidence of that being shown here, as the referencing is virtually entirely to primary sources that can't support notability. So no, it doesn't need a stronger notability claim than is already present here, but it does need stronger referencing to support it than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, The history of Radio Wey stems from 1965 and is of historical importance to the development of radio in the United kingdom. In 1965 there was only the BBC 'light program' and a handful of illegal offshore pirate radio stations. Hospital Radio Wey (as it was known back then), together with a small number of other hospital radio stations, brought a local personalized radio service to those in hospital to relieve suffering. It is hard now to imagine but these groundbreaking radio stations pre-dated the national UK BBC radio station, Radio 1 by 2 years and local BBC radio wasn't even thought of at that time. The citations given do provide credibility from independent sources, to the the background of the station in more modern times but alas not much was written down in the early years that has made it to the internet (which it also predates but now embraces). Hospital Radio Wey has produced its own programming content since 1965 and continues to this day providing the relief of suffering to patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis27 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What citations in the article represent credible and substantive coverage in reliable sources? There's virtually no media coverage at all, merely namechecks of its existence in directly affiliated sources that can never support the notability of anything. We keep an article when its claims of notability are properly sourced, not just when its claims of notability are asserted — articles can and do lie about notability claims that the subject doesn't actually have in reality, so we require reliable source coverage in media, not just unsourced or primary sourced assertions of notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just found a reliable source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-19530328 which according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is considered as from "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Are more references similar to this required ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis27 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That source just briefly namechecks Radio Wey's existence in an article that's fundamentally about the hospital's overall volunteer program rather than about the radio station specifically. What we're really looking for is sources that are about the station, not just sources that mention the station's name. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

From 1972: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gUwiAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Radio+Wey%22&dq=%22Radio+Wey%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWwrX6-M_ZAhWkAsAKHQlfDXsQ6AEITTAI From 1980: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AiFFAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA3525&dq=%22Radio+Wey%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWwrX6-M_ZAhWkAsAKHQlfDXsQ6AEISTAH It seems to me that RadioWey is being treated unfairly and asked to jump through lots of hoops in maintaining the article and also implying that it doesn't actually exist. I note that there are several radio stations in the US with little or no referencing and are not flagged for deletion. Why the apparent disparity ? Examples KAVL, KBDG, KBLF, KDB (FM), KZSB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis27 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Metallurg Bratsk

Metallurg Bratsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, unsourced, inadequate content ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Insignificant mentions in mostly unreliable sources. If someone can provide regional or Russian language sources, I can re-consider this !vote. However, in its current state and as per the source search I've taken up, the subject does not clear our notability guidelines, which require significant mentions in reliable sources. Lourdes 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Team is notable beacuse they played in the Russian league, one of the two top bandy leagues, for a couple of seasons. Smartskaft (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As I explained at Lesokhimik the other stub the CU blocked user created, we need multiple independent sources to substantiate notability, which must be verifiable. Both articles fail verifiability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Atsme here (and I have been one who has opposed Atsme in the past). If you can't provide reliable sources that discuss the team in-depth, then their claimed participation in supposedly top two bandy leagues is moot. Lourdes 04:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

^{Listed at WikiProject Russia & WikiProject Sports Atsme📞📧 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)}

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, the Russian WP article on this club is here - [91], although it has a bit more info, it has no references.... Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. It takes a bit of searching since the club folded a decade ago, but there are multiple Russian-language sources as you would expect for a team playing in possibly the top bandy league in the world for a number of seasons. [92] [93] [94] Even game program auctions: [95] None of these sources probably establish notability on their own, but it's clear there's a lot of information about them in Russian. Not sure what the bandy rules are since I do most of the work in football, but a team playing in a top-flight football league is almost certainly considered notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep Shelly In Athens. J04n(talk page) 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Bell

Jessica Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable promotional article. RedUser (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Keep Shelly In Athens. A few minor literary awards, but nothing that would indicate that she would pass the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC).
• Delete as per my PROD: "Non-notable author with coverage mostly limited to local news and first-party sources. No significant coverage in independent sources." Article is just a promo piece about non-notable author, filled with red-links to non-notable bands and publications she's been linked to. No content of encyclopaedic value worth saving. Kb.au (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep more refs have been added, many of significance. Web Warlock (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I have added more refs. Web Warlock (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment should we transclude the AfD talkpage entry, here, which seems to be a copy-paste of the one on article's talkpage?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs more/better sources but dismissing Bell as completely non-notable is too drastic. Yintan  08:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Revisit. The article needs more sources and better ones but to dismiss Bell as non-notable is wrong too. Could we not keep it and improve it?Wiindigookaanzhimowinuk (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Gee, what a familiar rationale. Where did I hear that before? Yintan  12:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Will someone improve it though? At the moment, it's just a promo piece written by either a paid author or the subject (See WT:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Bell and Talk:Jessica_Bell). WP:TNT wouldn't be inappropriate here. Kb.au (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've done some work on improving the sources and so have others. It's already a lot better than the original version. Maybe a little copy editing later. Yintan  10:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So how does it look now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, I've had a look at the renovated article and it's better. I still think a redirect is the most appropriate course of action here since the band seems to be what she is known for primarily. However, the ABC and Publishers Weekly sources look good and I wouldn't be upset if we kept either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC).
• Delete One of her books, Dear Reflection: I Never Meant to be a Rebel got a real,single paragraph, review in the Sydney Morning Herald. And her name was mentioned in a list of several writers in an article in The Guardian Self-publishing lets women break book industry's glass ceiling, survey find, but it does not appear to add up to quite enough to pass WP:GNG, and there are snot enough reviews of her work to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep significant coverage in multiple sources has been added recently, deletion would be a HUGE overreach at this point. CrispyGlover (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• This would be more persuasive if Crispy cited an article offering SIGCIV, and also, frankly, if Crispy had a less unusual pattern of editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Many of the sources are decidedly not WP:RS, but I looked at the two suggested by Lankiveil (ABC and Publishers Weekly). Neither one convinced me. I also looked at the Guardian article, but that's just a passing mention. The tone of the article is quite promotional. A full bibliography? This reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. Redirect to Keep Shelly In Athens per WP:ATD would make sense as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I also read the Pub Weekly and ABC articles, and they are mere brief mentions. This seems to me to be a clear case of PROMO and, possibly, of WP:TOOSOON by a self-promoting author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Ingolia

Nicholas Ingolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable assistant professor at Berkeley. There are 4 book mentions at Google Books and one at Google News. Not sure, this is enough. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This guy has been author on several relatively recent papers with 1,000+ citations (Google Scholar stats). While I don't see an official metric on what the WP:NACADEMIC standards are for "highly-cited," I would say he meets Criterion 1 of the specific criteria. Enwebb (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Roleren I am a master student in bioinformatics, and this guy have changed our field, he deserves an article, and have more then enough citations on google scholar, dont you think ? I understand why it should not be here, but should wikipedia only be a place for famous dead guys known to everybody ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roleren (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the issue is not being "highly cited" but being impactful, and the evidence does not show that Ingolia is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete He has published many articles, some with 2000 citations, however, he is only an assistant professor, and seems quite young. No features discussing his contribution I could see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Two first-author papers with over 1000 cites each are enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me, regardless of his academic rank. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep A GS h-index of 33, over 10,000 citations total, 3 publications in the major journals with over 1,000 citations apiece, and two of those are first-author... passes WP:PROF#C1. Coverage in National Geographic and The Scientist wouldn't be enough by itself, but it doesn't hurt [96][97]. He's also a 2011 Searle Scholar [98] and a 2014 recipient of an NIH Director's New Innovator Award [99]. Oh, and he's on a peer-review committee for the American Cancer Society, which isn't as prestigious as, e.g., being editor-in-chief of a journal, but it ought to be worth mentioning somewhere [100]. Basically, earlier-career scientists can still be notable, titles notwithstanding. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• keep The number of citations and h-index convince me he's notable in his field, regardless of his rank at Berkeley. The article is pretty sparse, but that's not the issue here.Sandals1 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I normally abhor fussing over citation counts in notability discussions, but this case seems to be a pretty well cited author. Enough for a stub at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep -- meets WP:PROF; the article is an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Open University#Open University Students Association. As a compromise. Sandstein 23:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Open University Students Association

Open University Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this for speedy, as it is an obviously hijacked page, made into organization’s “own” website. Would need to be completely redone. This was removed with the edit note, "unspeedy - well established title deserves AfD". Well hm. OK what I said already. I will add a) all unsourced or self sourced; b) per its editing stats mostly edited by SPAs including the recent User:Oustudents-media who wrote We are the OU students media team. The username literally represents who we are and by blocking our account removes our ability to edit the page for our OWN organisation. This is not a Wikipedia article. It would need to be completely written from independent sources. A BEFORE search yields a few refs with passing mentions so success in doing that appears unlikely. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the largest students' unions in the UK with some 200,000 members. The page did need editing to become a neutral, objective article, and anyone editing from the OUSA should familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's guidelines before re-editing this page, but now that issue has been dealt with I see no reason to delete this page. Eloquai (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That !vote has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. And people from the organization should not edit it directly per the WP:COI guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Students' unions are a peculiar case though; these are organisations that have thousands of members (hundreds of thousands of active members in this particular case), which students interact with and utilise on a daily basis, and which have served millions of university alumni... but which are unlikely to receive prominence through the normal channels we use to establish notability, since they are essentially 'private' institutions. In this case, I think we need to think liberally; this organisation has a significant membership and customer base that includes the population of one of the world's largest universities, and unlike other UK students' unions', operates on a truly national and international scale. I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say that it's difficult to defend through Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I also think there's a strong case to be made for employing a liberal interpretation of the criteria in this specific case. Eloquai (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete No indication it passes WP:NORG BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. as an exception to our usual practice of not having articles about these associations. Because of the nature of the university, this has a greater size & significance than almost any other of them. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• First, I may have a COI as I must have been a member in the mid 1970s as I was an OU student. Second, I understand the argument that this organisation is very large, but is it noticed? Most members have no real link to it. Are there reliable sources that discuss what it does and what influence it has? For now I give weak support to deleting it. Bduke (Discussion) 08:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. My gut feeling is that this is notable because of the size and reach of the university with much of the study being online. But the refs in the article say delete and i've googled for refs but come up short because it has a very generic name. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Both my parents studied at the Open University but seem to be unaware of the existence of the OUSA. Every single student is automatically enrolled in the organisation, but it would appear it only organises a few online forums and local meet ups in the United Kingdom. The study is online but the OUSA is not involved in the study, which is actually based on small tutor groups with their own forums. I personally have the rather cynical view that it only exists so Open University students can acquire NUS Extra cards and other student services and discounts where membership of a student union is a prerequisite. It could probably be enough to mention it at Open University#Open University Students Association (where it is already described). Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Open University#Open University Students Association. The organisation is large enough that it's a reasonable encyclopaedic topic, but there don't appear to be enough sources to support a separate article. – Joe (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Joe - seems like the best scenario. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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