Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 February 6 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egise TaaraJuvvalu[edit]

Egise TaaraJuvvalu (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)

Unremarkable, non notable film. Most of the coverage is press-release/promotional. Other sources that mention the film, are either not reliable sources, or make a passing reference to the film. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde's Vegetable Garden Planner[edit]

Clyde's Vegetable Garden Planner (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 independent references and no claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed for @Agricola44: by power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely unsourced and almost certainly not notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siempre contigo (2018 telenovela)[edit]

Siempre contigo (2018 telenovela) (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)

Unsourced and speculative project Philip J Fry / talk 22:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song)[edit]

Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) (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 apologize for redirecting the page two weeks ago without proper reasoning, but I would like to reopen this discussion to explain why this article is completely unnecessary. Quite frankly, there's hardly any information on the article itself; all on the article is a little bit of information on the song and a section of six references. I understand that Neil Young is a popular singer, but this song, especially since it was never released as a single, is not noteworthy. JE98 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recorded by two notable artists, Neil Young and Emmylou Harris. Meets crierion 3 of WP:NSONG. --J04n(talk page) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I don't like to just say "per J04n" as a reason, but J04n nailed it with criterion 3 of WP:NSONG. Plus, nominator's reasoning, "there's hardly any information on the article itself," shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of notability. Notability is not based on what's in the article, it's based on what can be in the article. In the case of songs, the general consensus is that this one is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per npm. redirected earlier. Non-notable song. মাখামাখি (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Multiple reliable sources and a CBE. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Chadwick (novelist)[edit]

Charles Chadwick (novelist) (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 don't think this person meets WP:AUTHOR. He has had two books published. The first one did get a number of reviews, as linked in the article. Searching for him, I found one additional review and one review of his second book, A Chance Acquaintance. I'm not sure all this adds up to significant coverage, though. He also is a CBE for his civil service work, but I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author Keep His first novel was covered by English and international sources, including The New York Times, Newsweek, The Guardian, Die Zeit, Harper's, The Washington Post, and others. I'm not sure what more we'd need to establish notability via GNG. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always considered the CBE and above to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list of references in the article read like a who's-who of respected mainstream media; The Guardian, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, Die Zeit, NY Times, Washington Post, Harpers. Some of those are behind paywalls so I couldn't read them, but the ones I did look at certainly met every definition of WP:RS I can think of. And, yeah, not to mention the CBE. What else are we looking for? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories with Stephen Fry[edit]

Horrible Histories with Stephen Fry (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 non-notable compilation of Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) episodes, with new introductions by Stephen Fry. Coin945 (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boring Bible[edit]

Boring Bible (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)

Popular spinoff to Horrible Histories. But there appear to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG. North America1000 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A series of books, which is being kept in print (presumably becasue the books are selling) 10 years after publication is likely to be notable. I am not sure why this had a tag about ACtive Arbiration remedies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's clearly notable, I cannot understand how the nom was made or garnished one delete !vote. But it does need work. This is a series off from the Horrible Histories series and should cover the whole series with more sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Can any of the keep !voters provide even one reliable source that provides significant coverage for this topic, the Boring Bible book series? I searched extensively, but they don't seem to exist. Sorry, but the arguments for article retention equate to WP:ITSNOTABLE thus far, and are not backed with any sources to qualify the stance. Notice how custom source searches such as those listed below are providing no significant coverage. Just because a series of books exists does not automatically mean that said series is notable. Furthermore, a series of books is not automatically notable by virtue of being a series. As I stated above, it just does not appear that WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG is met at all, or even able to be met. Fact is, there is not enough coverage available in reliable sources to even properly verify content presently in the article. North America1000 14:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of Black Rose Castle[edit]

The Mystery of Black Rose Castle (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 series is nostalgic for me... but I fear it may not have enough reliable coverage to warrant an article. Coin945 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - meets WP:TVSHOW as it was nationally broadcast on a major network. It has plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG. Cait.123 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice for anyone creating a redirect with the same name. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower at Third[edit]

The Tower at Third (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)

Building has not significant nobility. Fails WP:GEOFEAT CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even a whole lot of trivial mentions, nothing outside the very local area, and all are pretty WP:ROUTINE (e.g. the building is being painted by... ). There was the single nice article which is included on the page, but nothing beyond that. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge [was: Merge or redirect] is highly preferable, for currently-very-short-articles-on-topics-that-could-easily-be-notable-but-no-one-seems-that-interested-in-developing. We should strive for wp:ATD? (alternatives to deletion). For universities, it is often/usually good to have a corresponding list or two or three of university buildings, which then serve as good alternatives to creation of separate marginal articles. In this case, according to the UIUC navigation template, there exists list-article UIUC Residence Halls. The list-article does not mention The Tower at Third. This list-article appears to be an appropriate merge target. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per the university website on resident hall, that is no mention of The Tower of Third is part of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign resident hall or it belong to the university - see here [1], [2] and .[3]. From [4], [5] and [6], it seems the building belongs to private owner but close to the campus where students might choose to rent there, but it is not part of the university property - see here the campus building map and listing of the resident halls (2nd page) [7]. Thank you.
  • Righto, the excellent 2006 article about the building confirms it is privately owned and states "Today, the building is mostly student apartments, with 145 two-bedroom units, two singles and one triple. The building is 100 percent occupied, according to property manager Lesley Chouinard, with almost 300 students, most of whom go to the University of Illinois and call The Tower at Third home." However it can/should still be mentioned in the UIUC Residence Halls article (with clear explanation that it is privately owned). Also it is mentioned, with this 2006 source, at Champaign,_Illinois#Campustown and it is mentioned several times in Campustown (Champaign, Illinois) and is item number 4 in the list of buildings there. Redirect to coverage there seems appropriate. Redirect or merge outcome preserves the edit history and allows for a separate article to be re-created later if/when there is more coverage. --Doncram (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the info Doncram, To merge into Champaign,_Illinois#Campustown and Campustown (Champaign, Illinois) seems yield not much benefit but would preserve maybe 4 initial edits for of the articles above have pretty much the same information if not more than The Tower at Third. As a rental property building, to meets WP:GEOFEAT in the near future seems unlikely. However, it is much clearly, Tower at 3rd is not part of the university resident hall. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not even appropriate or a redirect, and there is no clear target. DGG ( talk ) 11:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? And where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lastochki/ICYE Russia[edit]

Lastochki/ICYE Russia (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 significant in coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Looks like Cunard's work has got it just got it over the consensus threshold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Work & Travel Co.[edit]

The Global Work & Travel Co. (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 non-notable company which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Seems to only have a couple of independent media mentions. One is a passing mention in relation to a news story on Australia's "backpacker tax" and all others relate to a low-profile FWO finding that the company underpaid some of its employees. No significant coverage. Kb.au (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain in further detail how this article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You say it has one passing mention in a backpacker tax article (which was at the time a contentious issue in the Australian media), and all others are 'low profile'. Can you elaborate the standards for low profile, and what is communally accepted standards for other profiles? Because while there is a source regarding the underpayment of workers, your comment and nomination doesn't include that there is an OFT investigation/article regarding unfair travel contracts, which was aired by ABC News a major outlet in Australia, both digitally and on it's 7:30 report. And CBCNews, a prominent outlet in Canada which was quite high profile at the time of occurring. 'No significant coverage' seems open to interpretation, but WP:CORPDEPTH list a series of 12 examples of trivial or incidental coverage which form the basis of the lack of depth of coverage argument, of which none fit the previously mentioned ABC/730/CBC/OFT national, International & governmental coverage. If there are some other reasons for your nomination, or if there's suggestions in terms of expanding the article, please let me know how we can work to improve the entry, otherwise I would recommend to Keep Shainebennett (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable & WP:TOOSOON. spammy content, and the controversy listed is minor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Clancy, Natalie (2014-11-12). "Exclusive. Global Work & Travel customers describe working-holiday nightmares. Many travellers say they ended up with no job after buying packages from company, CBC probe finds". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      Dozens of young customers hoping to go on working holidays say they were left stranded overseas by a company with an office in Vancouver, a joint investigation by CBC News and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has found.

      Many of the travellers, aged between 18 and 30, say they ended up with no job after buying a working holiday package from Global Work & Travel Co.

      The international travel company sells working holiday and volunteer packages from its offices in Vancouver, London and Surfers Paradise, in Queensland, Australia.

    2. Clancy, Natalie (2015-04-14). "Global Work and Travel's Canadian clients worried after liquidation warning. Working holiday company says customers' money and trips are safe". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      Canadian customers of Global Work and Travel are baffled after a warning from state officials in Queensland, Australia, that their working holiday packages could be in jeopardy because parts of the business in that country are in a voluntary insolvency process.

      Global Work and Travel sells working holiday packages to travellers under 30 years old through separate companies in Vancouver, London and on Australia's Gold Coast.

      ...

      Creditor reports obtained by CBC show they owe close to $2 million (Australian). Most of that money is owed to a related company, Global Work and Travel Co. (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd.

      ...

      The company guarantees that customers who cancel have 10 years to use their deposit toward another trip, but many customer contracts are with the companies that are closing.

    3. Clancy, Natalie (2014-11-13). "Exclusive. Global Work & Travel trains salespeople to lie, ex-employees say. Former staff tell CBC they were told to lie to clients who wanted to work abroad". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      Questionable sales tactics at an international travel company, which customers say left them stranded overseas, have been revealed in a joint investigation by CBC News and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

      A North Vancouver man is one of many former employees blowing the whistle on a company accused of misleading young travellers who want to work abroad.

      Jeremy Gilron quit his job at Vancouver’s Global Work & Travel Co. after just four days of sales training this past summer.

      Global Work & Travel arranges job interviews or volunteer positions overseas, as well as accommodation, airport transfers, flights, cellphones, bank accounts and insurance.

    4. Ford, Mazoe (2015-12-14). "Working holiday company The Global Work and Travel Co pays back $25k to customers after government investigation". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      A Gold Coast-based working holiday company has agreed to pay back thousands of dollars to young travellers after a Queensland Government investigation found what it believed were some unfair terms in the company's contracts.

      Twenty-nine people who had signed up for assistance on their gap-year travels are receiving partial refunds from The Global Work and Travel Co (Global), totalling $25,655.

      Global arranges travel and employment packages for 10,000 young people each year, primarily in Australia, UK, USA and Canada.

      In November 2014, a joint ABC and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) investigation unearthed dozens of angry customers, who accused Global of charging big mark-ups, using high-pressure sales tactics, and making false promises about employment.

      The article further notes:

      The partial refunds, which range from approximately $200 to $1,500, come after a 13-month investigation by the Queensland Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

      OFT investigators raided the company's Surfers Paradise headquarters in February 2015, seizing documents and computer files, and escalated the case to the OFT's Major Investigations Unit.

    5. Ford, Mazoe; Bainbridge, Amy (2016-03-15). "The Global Work and Travel Co working holiday company refunds customers after investigation". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      On Monday, the OIR said it would not continue to pursue the company, after it agreed to pay the two backpackers $4,585 in outstanding fees charged for finding them work.

      The company has seven days to make the payment, and the OIR says once it is made all action against the company will have been resolved.

      In another hearing in February, The Global Work and Travel Co was fined $9,000 for six contraventions of the Private Employment Agents Act 2005.

    6. Bainbridge, Amy; Ford, Mazoe (2014-11-11). "Authorities investigate The Global Work and Travel Co accused of rip-offs by former staff and customers". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      Queensland authorities are investigating 22 complaints about a Gold Coast company that sends young people around the world on working holidays.

      Separately, in a joint investigation between the ABC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), dozens of former customers and employees of The Global Work and Travel Co have come forward claiming the company preys on vulnerable consumers and gives false guarantees about jobs.

      The Global Work and Travel Co offers to take care of job opportunities, flights, transfers, visa assistance and insurance for travellers to work in five countries on 10 different programs.

    7. Ford, Mazoe; Bainbridge, Amy (2015-06-05). "Working holiday company The Global Work and Travel Co cautioned by Queensland consumer watchdog". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      A Gold Coast travel business at the centre of dozens of customer complaints could be named and shamed if it is found to be have breached Australian Consumer Law, Queensland's consumer watchdog has warned.

      The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) met with The Global Work and Travel Co's (GWAT) sole director last week to discuss the nature of more than 200 grievances.

      ...

      The OFT is currently investigating 146 complaints, while the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland is looking into 68 complaints — both are yet to make any findings.

      ...

      The meeting with Fair Trading inspectors comes after GWAT put two arms of its business into voluntary liquidation in March.

      A third entity, The Global Work and Travel Co (Asia Pacific) continues to book working holidays for young people.

    8. 10-minute video report on 11 November 2014 from ABC Online's Amy Bainbridge at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/false-promises-inflated-fares-and-misleading/5883774.
    9. Lavingia, Christina (2015-06-08). "12 ways to see the world for (practically) free". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

      The article notes:

      If your interests lie with the environment and wildlife, you can volunteer overseas through The Global Work & Travel Co. With options in Africa, India, Nepal, Thailand, Morocco, Greece, Spain and Fiji, to name a few, opportunities are available for two-week to one-year durations.

      Those who volunteer through this program can work to rescue animals, rehabilitate monkeys, care for orphans, raise husky puppies, teach in preschools, coach community sports leagues and take wildlife photography. This is a great opportunity for anyone considering a career in zoology or childhood development.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Global Work & Travel Co. to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The investigations of the company were published between 2014 and 2016 by ABC Online and CBC.ca, two of Australia's major news websites. This is sustained coverage of the subject.

    Cunard (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- upon the review of sources above, it's still a "delete" for me. The controversies are minor, as in: "The company guarantees that customers who cancel have 10 years to use their deposit toward another trip, but many customer contracts are with the companies that are closing." Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though poor promotional copy as is, news illustrates number of controversial articles not spoken in the current text. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are minor controversies. In any case, keeping the article would be akin to kicking the can down the road; I don't see anybody jumping on to edit the article; it's still the same advertorial as at the start of this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you think it is notable, being "poor promotional copy" should mean a delete for WP:NOT reasons shouldn't it? Kb.au (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some concern that the article now gives UNDUE weight to the negative coverage on the company. Kb.au (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly much better now. Thanks. Kb.au (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Only the article's creator wants this kept. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Easy[edit]

Driver Easy (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, previously PROD'd but was the tag was removed by the article's creator. G11 was declined, but it is somewhat notable (not to the point of G11 in my opinion). PROD text was: Non-notable software with almost no reliable sources online or in the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources provided include several independent articles from reputable websites. Rt25 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closing administrator: Rt25 is the creator of the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rt25: Reputable? Perhaps. Reliable as Wikipedia sources? No. Lifewire, TechAdvisor, and Purch Group are the only sources I'd consider reliable and they can't prove notability on their own. Softpedia is a download site, Download.com is a download site, CHiP hosts the download with a Dutch description, FileHippo is a download site, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: Aren't those reliable sources notable themselves? And is Alexa Rank helpful for proving notability? Rt25 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many sites are notable without being reliable. Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article but anyone who cited it would not be taken seriously. Alexa isn't a very good way to show notability either. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the website of this topic and it says the company is a Gold Microsoft Partner. Does that add to its notability? Even though every factor alone can't decide the topic's notability, is it possible that all of them combined can make a difference? And I understand that notable sites doesn't have to be reliable. It is still unclear for me that why the sources (except the download sites) aren't reliable. Also, if you look at some of the software Wiki pages, like Data Recovery Wizard and IObit Uninstaller, you can see cases that I think is similar to this page -- You get similar types of sources from them. Is it possible that some pages are treated differently than others with regard to notability? Rt25 (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sites that aren't download sites are reliable. I just don't think those three sources are enough to prove notability. Those other two topics don't look too reliable either (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I wouldn't be surprised if they got AfD'd too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then are there clear standards or requirements for notability to be adequately proven? What specific types of sources and how many of them are needed (since the three sources are not enough)? Rt25 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG (as a guideline) and WP:NSOFTWARE (as an idea). Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More sources added. Rt25 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: New sources added to help proving the notability of its topic. Some of its original sources were questioned not because they were unreliable but because they were "not enough". And it seems that Wikipedia doesn't have a clear and specific guideline for what are called "enough". Also, there are several pages that have similar sources on Wikipedia, like Data Recovery Wizard and IObit Uninstaller. They are pages that an administrator think should be AfD'd but they are NOT! And because of this, this page should be kept for the sake of consistency.Rt25 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a notable software package. The article reads like an advertisement to me. There are some references, but I'm skeptical of their journalistic quality, to put it lightly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this topic can be proven by the references. The article is written in an unbiased tone. The references aren’t ads either but independent articles, which the audience can trust.Rt25 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Damage Sound System[edit]

Brain Damage Sound System (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 notability guidelines, seems to be just a WP:GARAGEBAND. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sim[edit]

Aaron Sim (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)

See the multiple decline comments before it was moved into article space. No independent in-depth coverage, and so does not meet general notability.

There are two basic problems. First, most of the text is promotional. Second, the subject does not appear to be notable. The first could be solved by cutting, but not much would be left, and the subject still would not pass biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement for subject that does not meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, informations are gathered from reliable national newspapers in Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong and Brunei which are considered secondary sources.archived copy here Also the article in South China Morning Post and the forums. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable as either "author, entrepreneur, philanthropist" or a "chartered professional accountant". Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies - let me know if you would like the article moved to your userspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kettel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kettel (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 indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. A previous version of this article was previously deleted at AFD in 2016 for similar issues. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that criterion 5 is met by his release of three works on Planet Mu. My vote is therefore Keep, although I won't object if another consensus is drawn (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia after all). BriefAeon (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ctrl (SZA album). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl the Tour[edit]

Ctrl the Tour (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 seem to be notable either via the GNG or NTOUR (which requires discussion of the tour, not just a couple of reviews of individual shows). Drmies (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as the Billboard article cited and coverage in The Guardian here. A Merge to the main article about the artist or album is also worth considering. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Ctrl (SZA album). The previous voter is correct that there has been coverage in some reliable sources, but those are either brief stories that the tour had been scheduled, or in the case of the Guardian, a review of one show. Per WP:NTOUR the tour must be covered in the media as a notable entity in its own right. News tidbits from this tour can be mentioned at the article for the associated album, and at this point the list of shows is fan trivia that can remain at the singer's own website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not much discussion, but what there was is clearly in support of keeping.

And, yeah, poor article title is right. Somebody please find a better title and move it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on Security and Stability on Korean Peninsula[edit]

Vancouver Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on Security and Stability on Korean Peninsula (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)

Last update was before occurrence of the meeting, little documentation of occurrences, poor article title. Citing WP:N. -- Jeremy Ahn (talk | contribs) 11:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was a fairly significant development, also unsure what part of WP:N the original poster was citing. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus was derived from this discussion. Nakon 04:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khalek[edit]

Rania Khalek (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)

There is no secondary RS coverage of this person. Having written op-eds of unknown notability for a few left-wing outlets does not make one notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually there are plenty of sources that have her as a direct subject, such as the Jerusalem Post, but none are cited in the article.69.254.118.137 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the first two pages of results. There are only two RS on those pages: (1) a long Daily Beast story that mentions Khalek briefly in two sentences (2) A Dagens Nyheter article which covers the Daily Beast article and mentions Khalek once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include this interview on her, in-depth story about her, and major coverage of her in Commentary magazine. She's often a subject of controversy also here, so in addition to her credentials as a journalist and podcaster, she easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 13:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issamar Ginzberg[edit]

Issamar Ginzberg (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 sourced largely to either incidental mentions in reliable sources or profiles in non-notable sources. I gave up after deleting the reference to him as a descendant of King David. Article is unsalvageable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is credible, in-depth coverage already in the article here from the Times of Israel in the United States / Israel and here from the Jewish Telegraph in the U.K., among other in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that is indisputably about him; these mentions are anything but "incidental". There are also dozens of sources that are incidental quotes or mentions, or mere overkill, such as the string of sources "[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]" supporting a single sentence. I agree with the nominator that the tone is promotional and that the issue needs to be addressed, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the "Article is unsalvageable". AfD is not cleanup; the article should be retained and any concerns about tone or content should be appropriately addressed through discussion, consensus-building and editing. Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a highly-promotional article on a subject who is not notable as either "business strategy and marketing consultant" or a "motivational speaker". The source offered above [8] is part of the same promo pool of sources; it promotes his speech at an expo and includes an interview, again self-promotional. Being a columninst does not meet WP:AUTHOR and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • K.e.coffman, the article is promotional, but again that's a matter for editing and not a valid excuse for deletion. Tossing away one cherry-picked source that you have baselessly determined is not acceptable to you accomplishes nothing, unless you can dispense with *ALL* of them. There are five sources cited above, either already in the article or available to be added, all of which are undeniably in-depth articles about him in reliable and verifiable sources, and there are plenty more available. No one has claimed that he's notable as a columnist; he's also not notable as a soccer player under WP:FOOTY or as a paratrooper under WP:SOLDIER, but he is notable under WP:GNG based on the coverage he's received. Alansohn (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad we all agree that the article is promotional. It is a product of a marketing person's marketing, the sources are all a product of that marketing, and Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable as a person, I think this article meets the WP:BIO policy with the new sources identified above. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure I'd call this canvassing, but it might come off that way. [9]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also this Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems innocent enough, and no obvious reaction yet. But 7000+ people saw that tweet, I would be wary of new editors swarming in. (If you are a new editor reading this, don't bother commenting unless you have something substantial to say, this is a discussion, not a vote). However this is not enough to get me to change my comment at this point. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
        • Thanks for the subbed template. That's actually the one I had in mind but couldn't find it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It seems most of the content here stems from a PR persons's PR. The canvassing is troubling as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep True that the page needs to be cleaned up. Also true that the subject is notable. He has extensive news references in The US and Israel Adamreinman(talk) 16:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Issamar Ginzberg here,the person being weighed for notability in this AfD. :)

  • No Vote, but... Thank you for those who pointed me to this discussion and the gentlemen from Quora who let me know that I can/should weigh in on the discussion.

This profile of me, which I've obviously seen before, is a profile that is super full of all kinds of references; overkill in a big way. I did not want to come and delete or change anything because it would be "tampering" with the profile, and I hope(d) to no avail that this would get cleaned up by the Wikipedia community as time went along.

there must be fifty(?) or more footnotes and sourced to this article, a great many of which do, as has been pointed out, point to sources where I am quoted as a by-the-way, such as in Prevention Magazine, National Geographic, Reader's Digest, and so on. And, while those mentions are important to me from a business perspective, they alone do not give me the kind of notability that is rightfully required from a Wikipedia-worthy entry.

At the same time, were it not for those references, there probably are way more than enough serious profiles/references/sources to make this profile worthy of the Wikipedia entry. But again... i'm not the judge here!

So, to help you make an informed decision, let me quote some places I have been mentioned that may help voters make up their minds...

I've lectured and spoken at conferences across the world (Within the USA: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Arizona) in Montreal, Canada, and in the UK in London and Manchester. And in Israel, I've spoken in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other cities. The tens if not hundreds of well known and impressive venues include Google, Tel Aviv University, the Jewish National Funds Biannual Conference, the Jerusalem Post, and Jerusalem Institute of Technology. These have been covered extensively in the Hebrew, Yiddish, and English Media.

I've also been profiled by the Christian Science Monitor, Mishpacha Magazine, the Jerusalem Post, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Ami Magazine, the Jewish Tribune, Globes TV, Channel 9 (in Russian) and many other media outlets, in addition to the hundreds of mentions in other media outlets like TV interviews on CBS, NewsMax TV, and quoted that appeared in media outlets across the globe, from Costco Magazine and the Kuwait Times to the New York Times, Nasdaq.com, CNBC, and Fox Business.

I should probably also mention that I'm a weekly columnist for Hamodia, the prominent Ultra-Orthodox Paper in four English language editions (Ha'aretz (where I've been quoted too!) quotes the circulation at 100,000... have the dominating Yiddish language business podcast... and write for Entrepreneur Magazine and the Jerusalem Post as well. I've also contributed to several books either as myself or as a ghostwriter to help my clients get published. (shh!)

I'm also a graduate of the Rabbinic (Semicha) Program of Ohr Somayach, a Certified Mohel, and (to those of you who believe in the truth of the Bible, at least) have a chain of generations stretching back up from my own family all the way back to King David. (And yes, for those who care.. the lineage of King David back to "Zaidy" Adam and "Grandma" Eve is documented in the Bible itself.)

But I probably shouldn't mention that.. because I think that that might be what got this whole AfD started! :-)

So thank you everyone for your input, and may the chips fall where they may...

(putting on my business advisor/columnist hat here): at least there's a good way to teach a lesson out of this...

This must be a teeny tiny bit like (putting on my Rabbi hat now) what it's like when one gets to heaven after life on earth and they dissect his every action and judge him or her worthy...

Thank you for letting me have my say. And thanks for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbiissamar (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete this article, defaulting to keep. Nakon 04:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phaser (game framework)[edit]

Phaser (game framework) (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 general notability or product notability. The sources are nearly all primary, either the developer's web site or vanity sources or press releases.

Merging to the developer's article would be an option if the developer had an article, but the developer doesn't, presumably because they don't meet corporate notability.

Two previous editors have questioned notability. A deletion discussion is better than just move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a deletion discussion is better than a move-warring (which is of course very irritating and nobody wants!). As for the article, I'm quite surprised about it not meeting the requirements. We are talking about a pretty successful piece of software that is used in many games, has a big active community and has a long history of development (more than 4 years). Many sources are primary, yes, as they contain the most detailed description of several aspects, but there are also non-primary ones. Actually I wonder which kind of sources would one expect for a successful piece of software... an article in Ars Technica? I took the time to write (what I think is) a sensible draft so that Wikipedia covers something that I honestly think it should. I understand it being marked as a draft (as I myself did), and requesting it to be more complete, but "candidate for deletion"? That seems a stretch to me. (Not to mention directly removing it -- that I cannot agree at all :) ).

Finally, I'd like to differentiate what are "recommended practices" (and by whom) from what are official Wikipedia policies. I think deleting something is irritating enough so as not to take it lightly, and certainly not in a speedy way if not directly against official policies. Hopefully we all agree on that? :) --jbc (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think we can be more lenient with free software relative to commercial software, but there still have to be some independent, secondary sources for notability (otherwise every project on github could have an independent article - we still need some standard for notability). I can't find any sources for this subject, outside blogs, and the only blogs we allow are news blogs subject to editorial control. I think there is room for improvement here - Linux Kernel Monkey Log should definitely be considered a WP:RS, but the bar would still have to be high, and even the blog sources for this seem to be relatively minor.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No leniency should be given to any software out there. Open source doesn't mean no money gets exchanged, many companies release open-source software as a method of advertising, which is quite obviously the case here. Its more than generous wording along with it sourcing almost entirely on its own site, this falls dramatically short of inclusion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - I found a few things, whilst not my area, I know this framework is used on a lot of games on Android. See [10],[11],[12], [13] Whether or not any of these are considered reliable sources is up to those who know more about programming. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong-ish keep - (Is this a voting thing? :) ) I agree with SeraphWiki in having some standard of notability, and whereas the fine line of where it is is hard to decide, I think we are playing safe here: Phaser is quite a notable thing in many metrics (sheer number of people using it for a start). The references given by Lee Vilenski are quite a good reflection of it, imho (not only but especially the mozilla development site and book published by crc press). As for the "obviously as a method of advertising", well, let's not be paranoid :) I wrote the article (a draft) and I have no connection whatsoever with the guys who developed Phaser, I'm just a user and was shockingly surprised that there was no Wikipedia entry for such an obvious (imho) article, so I started writing one. Finally, seriously, deleting is not to be taken lightly, I do hope that you see how insulting that can sound (to the criteria of the editor). --jbc (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't much about the subject area, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage apart from primary sources. I looked over the sources Lee Vilenski found, but in all four cases I have doubts about the significance of either the source or the coverage. JBC - Both here and in the edit summaries, you keep using the argument that no one should propose an article be deleted because it hurts the feelings of the editor who created the article. That's not a valid argument; frankly, if you are oversensitive enough to take it personally whenever a WP article you created is being considered for deletion, that's your problem, and would probably be better solved by using the WP:Articles for creation process. It's obviously a lot slower than just creating an article yourself, but the emotional investment is less if it doesn't meet notability standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. the contributor asked for speedy deletion of their article DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surge Holdings Inc.[edit]

Surge Holdings Inc. (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 company lacks notability. All of the mentions at Google News are press-releases. Even NASDAQ mention is a re-published company press-release. Other mentions are normal stock market data and don't give deep coverage. The only third party data mention is TheAtlantic.com.de article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete based on this being an OTC-listed blockchain company, and "theatlantic.com.de" may be a fake news site; I believe this company to be a deliberate fraud. The other references are stock listings or press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I published this article; I'm relatively a new editor, so don't yet know well Wikipedia's guidelines. I've blanked the article, and you may delete it now. Thanks. Haayin (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting Elections Simultaneously in India[edit]

Conducting Elections Simultaneously in India (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:NOTNEWS and WP:OR Chetsford (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Upadhyaya[edit]

Dinesh Upadhyaya (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)

Utter trivia. Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Guiness Book of Records. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Wikipedia keeps record of many non-notable people like Oxford University's teacher or porn stars with 5 credits. I don't think a normal porn actor or a university's professor with no noteworthy achievement is deserving for a biography. The article clearly notes that he has made 89 Guinness records to his credit, so the person is important and his bio should be kept. Ratsama (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. trivia, not notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is trivia and as such it is not notable in Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MT TrainDiscuss 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Störm (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another example of total silliness in creating an article. I have to agree that people who appear in a few pronographic films are not notable, but that is no reason to create this article on someone who is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Looks like WP:CSD#G5 as well ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pacitti[edit]

Adam Pacitti (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 is a BLP about a non-notable YouTuber. The subject is allegedly notable for WhatCulture (which is so notable that it doesn't have an article) Cultaholic (which is so notable that it doesn't have an article) and WhatCulture ProWrestling aka Defiant Wrestling (which is so notable that it is up for AfD for a third time and is almost certainly going to be deleted again). So the article seeks to inherit notability from things that are not notable themselves and notability is not inherited anyway. Is there notability outside of that? I'm not seeing it. Sure, he has a tiny bit of media coverage but nothing that adds up to significant coverage by reliable sources and that is the line it has to cross to be kept. There has been persistent spamming and promotion around the topic of WCPW/Defiant and I feel that a pre-emptive salting might be in order here. DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 19:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 19:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 19:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see nothing to support WP:GNG. 2 out of the 6 references are to the same passing billboard ad which does not have anything lasting. 3 of the 6 have to do with a project not him. The last one is an interview. - GalatzTalk 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet general notability guidelines - a couple of tabloid articles regarding a single publicity stunt, an interview by a (presumably amateur) 19-year-old video games writer, a few trivial mentions in pro-wrestling media relating to a company of dubious notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I feel as though if he were not tied to WhatCulture, he wouldn't have ever been made. He does have some other claims to fame such as the Pinfall Documentary, but hardly enough for Wikipedia's criteria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitta Pitta (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ertaizi[edit]

Ertaizi (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 "there's no there there" placename: coords mark a point in the middle of field SW of a town with a different name. There is an Ertaizi geological formation but it's not the least bit clear what it's named after. GHits don't produce census info or anything else definitively indicating the presence of a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a place is now an open field doesn't mean it did not exist. It probably was subsequently destroyed or abandoned in WWII, or the Civil War or in the subsequent changes and turmoil of the Peoples Republic's history. Such places should be remembered, as a lesson in the fragility of all things human, if for no other reason. Asiaticus (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then source it. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In current circumstances it fails WP:NGEO, also for WP:V —usernamekiran(talk) 21:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FC Tucson season[edit]

2012 FC Tucson season (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 season for a semi-pro team. Article fails WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 15:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhok Gujran[edit]

Dhok Gujran (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 content Rathfelder (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was blanked by an IP about six months ago. I have undone that and restored the content. Undecided on notability, but now it has content. Smartyllama (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to withdraw my proposal on that basis.Rathfelder (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zaiful Abdul Hakim[edit]

Zaiful Abdul Hakim (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Article was deleted over sourcing and notability concerns. While the sourcing issues have been addressed, the subject still does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Donnelly Sunset League[edit]

George Donnelly Sunset League (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:CLUB. Local amateur league without any national or regional coverage. Rogermx (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Carabalí[edit]

Omar Carabalí (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Boys' Choir[edit]

St. John's Boys' Choir (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:NORG and WP:NMUSIC possible redirect to the college page Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musical group. There are 5 million schools in the world. No, need to add each school's musical team. They have no charted song in billboard. মাখামাখি (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diganto Publication[edit]

Diganto Publication (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 publishing house.Probably created by UPE sock. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and, in general, promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious spam created by a CU confirmed sock. Other issues don't come into consideration as it fails to meet the terms of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wastement[edit]

Wastement (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources are 1&3 a PR website that states "We help Finnish music professionals build international success stories" 2 doesn't mention the subject, 4&7 facebook, 5 a festival guide that contains a passing mention, and finally 6 which doesn't mention the subject Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Kashmiri History[edit]

Lost Kashmiri History (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 Website or Organisation is not notable and every line in this article is pure Original research. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP
A few reasons as to why this should stay.
1. This is not purely original research as citations have been listed where some of the authors of Lost Kashmiri History have been mentioned directly or the organisation and organisation members themselves has been cited by media outlets as author. Other people have even blogged about Lost Kashmiri History being a good source.
See -
http://www.maryscullyreports.com/lost-kashmiri-history-archives/
http://withkashmir.org/lkh/
http://www.kashmirconnected.com/publications-news/lost-kashmiri-history
2. Please note how other leading media portals both in India and Pakistan use Lost Kashmiri History as a source or author showing the reputation and notability it has. See below.
- https://thewire.in/116787/silenced-exotic-backdrop-called-kashmir/
- The Wire (Indian web publication) is a leading news portal - "Muhammad Faysal is [...] and co-founder of the Lost Kashmiri History Project."
- http://www.dawn.com/news/1270341 - Dawn (newspaper) This is a leading newspaper in Pakistan - "...was born in Srinagar, Kashmir. He's the co-founder of the Lost Kashmiri History Project."
- https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/8/15/kashmir-and-the-festering-legacy-of-partition - "...Arsilan Aziz, founder of the website Lost Kashmiri History, told The New Arab..."
3.Please note how some sources and citations for some Wikipedia pages on media organisations are the media organisation themselves.
4. There has been at least two editors who have helped improve this page and prevent vandalism, rather than try to take it down. Both of these editors are experienced in their own ways. The history log can be seen accordingly. (see User:Cmr08 and User:CASSIOPEIA) This is in the true spirit of Wikipedia.
5. Note this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helping_Angels - It has not been deleted and some citations and sources lead to blank links. Just a template box put up stating that the article needs improvement. There are many stubs on Wikipedia with very very few sources. Lack of citation (as compared to absence of sources) cannot be the only grounds for deletion especially in a case when there are citations and sources and when notability becomes subjective to the region and area and field it represents. But yes I understand there are grounds where this article doesn't meet notability and sources in certain ways.
6.I have no Conflict of Interest here as I am not part of Lost Kashmiri History. Nor do I have conflict of interest related to the Kashmir conflict. I have started pages related to the Indian Army, the Director General of NIA India as well as Kashmir etc... as can be seen by the type of articles i have started and edited and photographs I have contributed.
7. If the Wikipedia community thinks the page still needs to be removed, according to Wikipedia guidelines, then well, ok, I think the admin and the community at large on Wiki does a wonderful amazing job. Part of the learning. Maybe Lost Kashmiri History may be able to prove notability etc on Wikipedia better after a few months or years.
Cheers :)
DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, for which we require at least two reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. The sources mentioned by the page creator are essentially blog sites, not mainstream news media. (I have written about topics where it is incredibly hard to find main stream sources, e.g., Baloch Students Organisation, where all independent news sources have been suppressed by the state. So I understand the problems. But Kashmir has thriving news media. If this organisation is notable, there should have been coverage.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Rather than deleting this in entirety from Wikipedia, maybe it can be redirected or merged into another article and shortened to a few lines within the new article it is placed in. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have WP:RS talking about the website, you are always free to add its mention to an appropriate article. That doesn't affect this AfD in any way. Most of the content in the present article is sourced to SPS and blog sites. I don't see anything here that can be salvaged. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the many little known organization. Nothing suitable for merge. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, including for the fact that the 'Keep' vote shows clear POV/advertising is at work, even if the user claims they do not have a POV, which is always a sign of the opposite. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Finance Student Association[edit]

International Finance Student 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)

fails WP:NORG. All sources are affiliated or a student blog. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Nawaz[edit]

Yasir Nawaz (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 the criteria for notability. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. HighKing++ 15:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. NeilN talk to me 14:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rushdi[edit]

Ahmed Rushdi (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 includes unsourced content, bias and dead links. HFM Expert (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Neither of those is a reason to delete an article. If the article needs fixing, then fix it. I see from the article's edit history you've had a content dispute with User:Umair Aj: deletion is not the way to fix this. Have you read WP:Dispute resolution? The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject is a celebrated and a renowned Pakistani singer. I don't see the logic behind this irrational AfD. --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination with no basis in policy from user involved in edit war at article. Previously attempted to "speedy" as "attack page"... Purely disruptive. -- Begoon 14:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes West End[edit]

Haynes West End (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 an obviously notable hamlet in the middle of nowhere. Sources are maps (which publish every place everywhere) and a trivial passing mention in a newspaper. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Haynes, Bedfordshire if not deemed notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CSD G5. Highly malicious and deceptive user who was just site banned after getting caught socking, and was blocked by consensus of the community before that. The principles in WP:BMB applies here. We don’t need to assess anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete---Essentially per TonyBallioni.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no notability whatsoever, meets criteria for WP:A7 and WP:G5. Adding speedy delete template under G5 as that is the most agreed upon main reason. --Kirbanzo (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this page meet criteria A7? See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 before you answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I think it is worth referring to the Domesday book [14]]. So not a trivial mention. It states that Haynes Church End being two fields away from the main village, which is clearly split in two, with Haynes (which is unamed), the other called Haynes West End, clearly sign posted as such, with that name. Sometimes, if there was plague, they would burn the houses, to stop the spread of it, and it would split village into pieces. It could be that, that has led to this. I would suggest a Merge. scope_creep (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn.And, keeping this open will likely generate far more heat than light. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Boone[edit]

Sarah Boone (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. This may be a bit of a test case: does the mere filing of a patent infer notability? The article does not appear to demonstrate any lasting coverage in reliable secondary sources etc but relies instead entirely on contemporary primary sources. FWIW, I've just removed some citations referencing findagrave, which is not considered to be reliable anyway. Sitush (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahem, WP:SPS - Lulu, Authorhouse etc are not reliable sources, so none of your links apply. I agree that a sleeve board is quite commonly found even today but that does not mean it is the design in question, nor indeed that the design in question was ever put into production. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first source is published by Good Year Books. I stand to be corrected, but they seem to be a reputable educational publisher in business since 1973, long before the internet and self-publishing became a thing. My second source is authored by E. P. McKnight who has a masters degree in Educational Psychology. That might get her past the "recognised expert" hurdle, and even if it doesn't, she is possibly notable as an actress. Even if her information is not deemed reliable, the views of a notable person on the subject is worthy of note and adds to its notability. Don't know about David M. Foy though.
    • You've got to be kidding that sleeve boards are a different design today invalidates her claim to notability. The same could be said for the inventors of cars, aeroplanes, computers ........ Still a keep for me. SpinningSpark 20:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, school books are not reliable - that has long been the case, although I admit to not always being sure why. Lulu is Lulu as far as I am concerned - no reason why McKnight couldn't get it published "properly" and a Masters is nothing. I didn't say that being a different design invalidates it - there are, for example, many hundreds of patents for fork-like eating implements but very few have ended up in production. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the patent was all we had, an article may not be justified, but the coverage that exists (see also [15], [16], [17], [18]) is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sources are better than those from Spinningspark but they don't really say anything about Boone. They appear to be just passing mentions, which would perhaps indicate her bio could be redirected to some article about ironing boards where we could insert a sentence or two about her invention. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • She already gets a mention in the Ironing article. I would suggest seeing what sources others can find, and if there's consensus that there's not enough for a separate article, expanding the content there and redirecting. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. But there is nothing worth merging from the bio as it currently stands - it is all primary sourced stuff etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the references aren't brilliant but, adding what we have here, they seem sufficient overall to me bearing in mind the guidance in WP:Notability (people) that we may combine multiple independent references, even where they are not individually substantial. Merging would not be an improvement for source or target. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a collective failure to understand GNG here. The sources do not discuss her in any depth and most of those proffered so far are not reliable and/or repeat the same minimalist information. I can accept a redirect but no more. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: keeping in mind Boone's time period, is it likely that there are offline sources? I would be interested if searches in Newspaper.com or other archives might reveal more RS. I'm currently leaning towards a keep based on the assumption that offline sources do indeed exist.Thsmi002 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it must appear that I am badgering but this is getting ridiculous. I do hope that whoever closes this does not accept a keep !vote on the speculative grounds that something might exist somewhere. If that was a valid rationale then there would be no real purpose in 90% of AfDs, nor even in notability guidelines because anything can be speculated to have something recorded about it somewhere at some time. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point being made is that no one has yet come here saying they have done a search of a decent American newspaper archive and found nothing. This is why we have presumption of notability – not everyone has access to the relevant archives for a subject. And no, it does not make AfD pointless. The purpose of AfD is to take a closer look. But I am happy to stick with keep on the basis of what we have already. SpinningSpark 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have searched as best I can. That is what WP:BEFORE is about. The onus should be on anyone who wants to keep it to prove that it should be kept. I am also astonished at the number of people who have turned up here in short order, mostly experienced and yet seemingly clueless about sourcing. Which projects have been notified to cause such an astonishing influx of commenters in such a short space of time? Most things I send to AfD don't get this many responses in a full week and I do suspect there may be an underlying she was a "black woman in a white man's world" sort of feeling as the basis for keeping - it isn't, and nor are any of the sources thus far provided. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being a successful "black woman in a white man's world" can be a significant part of her story, Sitush. The color of our skin shouldn't matter, but it does and has in the United States, especially during her time period. Apparently, she was also a former slave. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that but it also doesn't alter the fact that there are people who contribute to Wikipedia and go way, way over the line in attempts to address what they perceive as systemic bias. Without sources that are reliable, independent and cover her life in some depth she is still not notable: we are supposed to be a reflection, not some pro-active campaign facility. I cannot see that source here but I can pretty much guarantee this article was created as a consequence of either Women in Red or Black History Month, and it is typical of the do-gooding nonsense that results from the similar Dalit History Month campaign. You can have a thousand sources that mention her name, many of which will just be jumping on the bandwagon (ie: one newspaper picking up off another) but we need quite a bit more than just a name-check. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitush what do you mean by "do-gooding nonsense?" I find that people's good-faith efforts to write about individuals who are under-represented are hardly "nonsense," and if people make mistakes about notability, that's what AfD is for. And there is a systemic bias, especially from Boone's time period. She was a slave. She's highly unlikely to be covered in local news sources as there weren't a lot of black newspapers yet. However, her invention is important and, I've learned, was a game-changer in how people ironed. That's significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't know what I mean by "do-gooding nonsense" now then probably you never will. An example: if someone is a Dalit and LGBTQ then they seem to be able to scrape through GNG like no other person would do; it sometimes seems as though if they also had a disability such as just one leg then some people would be demanding immediate raising to FA status. It is ridiculous. Subaltern historians exist: let them write about the subalterns and we can reflect their writings. Yes, I know it seems impossibly unlikely but it does happen - they're good at that sort of thing, eg: E. P. Thompson, Marc Bloch and lord knows how many from the Indian subaltern school. We should not act as apologists for the mistakes, prejudices etc of our forebears: that is liberal wishy-washy stuff and I am more and more convinced by the piling-on here that it is such stuff which is driving it, not our policies and guidelines, which are basically being ignored. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you see, Sitush as "ignoring" guidelines, I see as reading the guidelines. When someone makes an important contribution, such as an important invention, especially when the odds are stacked against them, they pass #2 ANYBIO. That's clear. The thing is, that you seem very biased against what you dismissively call "liberal wishy-washy stuff" so you are unable to see that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am aware of ANYBIO, thanks. She patented something; so did many other people. Not every patent makes it to production. Show the evidence that this one did, rather than some other patented by someone else. As I said above, there are hundreds of patents for fork-like eating implements but very few can be shown to have reached production and even fewer made any difference. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petroski, Henry (1993). The Evolution of Useful Things. Pavilion. is good on this sort of thing. No mention of Boone, alas. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a sleeve board patented in 1884, years before Boone's. Of course, there are many patented after her also. The reason she has got passing mentions here and there is very probably because, yes, her slave/black/female background makes her an unusual case. But there is no meat to those mentions, hence the problem. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop making unfounded claims on people's motives. You couldn't be more wrong about what is driving my participation here, but as it's not relevant, please go to my talk page where I will be happy to explain to you my method for finding debates to participate in and my personal criteria for supporting an article. For someone who is so hung up on the quality of sourcing it is rather hypocritical to make assumptions on motives without evidence. I also note your claim that educational books are unreliable was not supported with a link to policy - more failure to practice what you preach. SpinningSpark 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a claim - I worded it to avoid that - and I didn't refer to you specifically with regard to what I did say. It is extremely worrying to me that we have admins here who seem not to understand our guidelines, though. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1888, a woman named Sarah Goode applied for and was granted a patent in Chicago, Illinois. Goode had just conceptualized what she called the “cabinet-bed,” a bed designed to fold out into a writing desk. Meeting the increasing demands of urban living in small spaces, Goode invented the cabinet-bed “so as to occupy less space, and made generally to resemble some article of furniture when so folded.” Goode was a 19th century inventor who reimagined the domestic space to make city living more efficient. Yet unless you’re a very specific kind of historian, you’ve probably never heard of her name. She doesn’t appear in history books, and what she did remains largely unknown. The same goes for Mariam E. Benjamin, Sarah Boone and Ellen Elgin—all 19th century African-American women who successfully gained patents in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

Secondly, it is unclear to me what you mean, Sitush, by this sentence, "I cannot see that source here but I can pretty much guarantee this article was created as a consequence of either Women in Red or Black History Month, and it is typical of the do-gooding nonsense that results from the similar Dalit History Month campaign." but I can tell you how it made me feel: hurt and targeted. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well sorry about that but crap is created. It isn't your fault that it is created because you didn't actually do it. Nowhere have I mentioned your name so perhaps try to get over it? - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitush: what you're not understanding is that your words and actions can hurt others, even if you do not intend for that to happen. Rosiestep is expressing that to you and her feelings are valid. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitush, let us agree to disagree regarding this article. But you mentioned Women in Red in a manner which I consider to be cavalier and disparaging. To be clear, I am referring to WP:WikiProject Women in Red, the community co-founded by Victuallers and me in 2015, which was shortlisted in 2016 by ITU/UN Women for the GEM-TECH Award. You and I have not exchanged harsh words before, Sitush; let's try to stay that course. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if I hurt you then I am sorry for that. But it won't change my opinion of that project, although I do acknowledge it is way better than the Dalit History Month project. I think far too many people on Wikipedia take offence at the first sign of a challenge: robust opinion is valid, we're not in kindergarten and, as a part-Yorkshireman, I tend to call a spade a spade, not a shovel. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quote is another passing mention. She can have her place on this project via a redirect until some researcher actually does dig some stuff out (it happens - see my last reply to Megalibrarygirl just now). The fact that the source specifically says "[They] doesn’t appear in history books, and what [they] did remains largely unknown." is exactly the point - she fails GNG for a standalone article. All these attempts - DHM, BHM, WIR - to boost unknown people are effectively attempts to game the system. We are supposed to be a reflection, not a campaign, as I said above. If people want to campaign, go fork the project. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your opinion is that these projects "Game the system?" and in the same paragraph you are trying to say how you want this AfD closed? Last I checked, Wikipedia was a collaborative effort. We can decide what goes in and what stays out collectively. You don't get to decide for all of us. And you still haven't addressed Rosiestep's concerns. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is my concern but obviously not every single thing they do: they are enablers, more than anything. I am not sure which of your WIR mate Rosiestep's concerns you feel I have not addressed but you and all the admins here really should know that redirects are common for people who lack significant independent coverage about their lives etc in reliable sources but, nonetheless, have a vestigial notability. The redirect can always be turned back into a full-blown article if information turns up via the subaltern historians etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her invention made a difference to how ironing was done. Even if we didn't have little biographical details, her work itself is important. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The framing of "any old patent is inherently notable" is creating a straw man argument. The article needs more sourcing, but things such as a school textbook meet RS in terms of third-party publisher and fact-checking, it's not the Daily Mail. And it isn't "merely" getting a patent that is notable. It's OMG, the odds she overcame to get a patent completed and filed in her own name was amazing in her time and place, particularly given the odds against her. And the invention was notable, regardless of design changes. For my mother's generation in particular (you know, for whom a perfect home and perfect clothing became how they were judged), these things were a godsend. Once again, I think we have a "pre-Google sourcing" concern here, a problem that often hits with these biographies of 19th century people. Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what muddies the waters searching for her, Montanabw is that there are several historic "Sarah Boones." The name is common and it's slowing research down on my end. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons we do not use school textbooks is, I think, because they oversimplify and lack any credible academic depth. They often screw things up big time, too, eg: NCERT controversy. I do accept the "OMG" point - I've never disputed it - but OMG isn't in any guidelines I've seen. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have looked at the article again in the last hour and can see some stuff has happened there that no-one has mentioned here. Combining the Smithsonian thing mentioned above with the ThoughtCo website and a book someone has linked at archive.org does it for me - thanks for finding that material. Any uninvolved person can feel free to consider this AfD withdrawn. I know a lot of you think I have been tough here but I spend most of my time dealing with issues of systemic bias etc and, well, the article as it stood when I first saw it, plus my own research (there are a lot of Boones out there) seemed to justify the nomination. Sorry if anyone thinks I have wasted their time but I do stand by a lot of the points I made above, eg: all of the stuff about passing mentions being insufficient, ANYBIO not applying, self-published works by people with Masters degrees being useless etc even though others thought otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes I'm here because of Women in Red being mentioned. Not sure why this is relevant, but it invites this defence. I see here that the concept of notability is getting confused with fairness. Its not as if notability is under threat - we have umpteen of thousands of notable women identified who are notable and missing from Wikipedia. (It is important that there were sensible rules for sitting on the buses in Alabama.) These rules are the instrument of fulfilling values and rights. We don't need to change the rules of notability in this discussion, but where our existing Wiki-rules prevent us from attaining the values and rights we aspire to share, then those rules will need to be changed. Victuallers (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am glad you used "grandstand" as an edit summary because it won't happen. You're too invested in the movement as an activist and activists are more prone to lose control of their emotions. For what it is worth, anyone who gets a grant from the WMF or chapters for development of articles etc is, by definition, a paid editor with all the baggage that brings. But all of this is for another day, hey? - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geethanjali G[edit]

Geethanjali G (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. The one article about her states, "Malaysiakini today published a report that says speculations are rife Geethanjali's company G Global Media had made up the list and paid for the advertorial to create publicity for the former Miss Malaysia. The list described her as a fashionista and a global speaker, however many are questioning if her husband, a mysterious but supposedly wealthy man was behind the list." Edwardx (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PROMO of a business person, which has earmarks of a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nakon 04:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unijerina[edit]

Unijerina (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 for a village of just 9 people, Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Other nearby villages have their articles, and this particular one already has articles on 7 other wikis. It had 10 times larger population in 1945, but has suffered from migration flows, like the whole region. Many villages in remote areas are facing the outflows of population, but does this mean that the memory of their existence must be erased as well? Unlike you, I don't think so. Sideshow Bob 13:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Commnent this seems to indicate that there is some interest in the geology around there. SpinningSpark 16:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Spinningspark and common sense. Any village, however small, with several interwiki links, deserves to be on EN Wiki too.--Darwinek (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. no consensus to delete. Nakon 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia people[edit]

List of Wikipedia people (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 page is a terrible idea. It's is bellybutton-facing, unproductive, and creates a list of people who can then become further legends in their own mind. It elevates people within the WMF community to a higher standard and reinforces the perception and reality that there is a clique of people running things. This is undemocratic and offensive. This article should be removed. The picture alone is just all kinds of awful. So many entries need improvement or creation, and THIS has been given so much time and energy. Please focus on something more productive. What a load of hoey! BrillLyle (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions may vary as to what is specifically offensive about the image in this article, but from my view, a blow-up shot of Jimbo's "middle age spread" in a middle-aged shirt is .... unfortunate Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 5. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 10:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:BLP. A list should either explain why it is notable in itself (this doesn't) or only contain notable people (this doesn't either). The article contains people whose articles have already been deleted owing to BLP concerns (I would tell you but WP:BEANS); other people are denoted purely as "x is y at the WMF" which doesn't really provide any value. I don't mind a category of people associated with WP, which would include Jimbo, Larry and one or two others, but I don't think a list is suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree with Ritchie: this would be fine as a category but as a list it could easily become a BLP violation magnet and a maintenance nightmare. Categories have the built-in advantage of automatically screening out non-notable individuals, which a list like this lacks. 28bytes (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN specifically rebuts the idea that lists are inferior to categories and states that they should not be deleted for this reason. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Here is a selection of sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia
  2. Imagining the Wikipedia community: What do Wikipedia authors mean when they write about their 'community'?
  3. Taking up the mop: identifying future Wikipedia administrators
  4. Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List
  5. Volunteers in Wikipedia: Why the community matters'
  6. Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia
  7. Explaining quality in Internet collective goods: Zealots and good samaritans in the case of WikipediaExplaining quality in Internet collective goods: Zealots and good samaritans in the case of Wikipedia
  8. On the inequality of contributions to Wikipedia
  9. Naturally emerging regulation and the danger of delegitimizing conventional leadership: Drawing on the example of Wikipedia
  10. Governance, organization, and democracy on the Internet: The iron law and the evolution of Wikipedia
I can't remember if it was preserved on Wikipedia, but I recall reading that at least one editor on that list suffered harassment from their association with the project and found it difficult to get employment. As this is not at the same level of public news as Donald Trump sexual harassment allegations, let's just go easy on people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We maintain lists of people known for discreditable things – see the recent "Keep" result for list of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes at AFD, for example. Being associated with Wikipedia is usually considered a comparatively good thing and so is nothing like such other pages. Andrew D. (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting you mention list of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, in which you (correctly, in my view) argued for its deletion. Like that article, this article too fails the criteria for inclusion described by WP:LISTN. In particular, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". There are certainly articles that mention one, two, or a handful of so-called "Wikipedia people" in their coverage of Wikipedia, but I can't find any that talk about "Wikipedia people" (or something similar) "as a group or set", and certainly no articles that discuss even half (much less all) of the people listed in List of Wikipedia people. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed above talk about "Wikipedians ... power editors on Wikipedia ... the Wikipedia community ... Wikipedia authors ... Wikipedia administrators ... Volunteers in Wikipedia" &c. "Wikipedia people" is a reasonable general term for this. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely what makes the list indiscriminate. "Wikipedians", "Wikipedia authors", and "Volunteers in Wikipedia", in particular, would reasonably cover anyone who's ever contributed to a Wikipedia article, from Roger Ebert to Arthur Rubin to Anders Behring Breivik. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As we have articles about all these people, I'm not seeing 28bytes' point. There have been 5 attempts to delete the article about Arthur Rubin but they all failed. It seems that some Wikipedia people don't like coverage of other Wikipedia people but their views lack consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see 28bytes' point very well with Arthur Rubin. I read his article and thought it was a reasonable stub for a notable scientist. I then thought "is that the same Arthur Rubin who was recently dragged to Arbcom and desysopped"? The article doesn't say, and probably rightly so for BLP reasons. So if it's not in his own article, it should definitely be in no other, and having this list around is a magnet for that happening while no-one's looking. I'd rather not take the risk. There is also a deleted article Kevin Gorman (Wikipedian), which was created by the same editor responsible for most of this article, before he had a change of heart and G7'ed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Rubin is irrelevant to this question of deletion because he is not listed on the page in question. To maintain such an entry we would expect an independent reliable source which details his editing activity and so establishes its notability and significance. If we have such sources then an entry is fine because we have independent support. Housekeeping such a list by requiring sources is routine. The fact that list entries can be supported by citations is a feature that makes them superior to categories, which tend to lack inline citations. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't be entirely averse to repurposing this as a very specific list of people who have had a significant influence on Wikipedia/Wikimedia (Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Magnus Manske, even Carolyn Doran). The current people associated with the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is hopelessly vague; at what point does "occasionally edits Wikipedia" become "associated with Wikipedia"? This kind of list is barely workable for things like TV programs, where at least it's clear whether someone has appeared on a given show or not. For something like Wikipedia, where we quite often don't even know if the person claiming to be a given celebrity is actually that person or not, where people regularly create accounts to edit a particular topic (usually themselves) but never participate any further, and where we have a governance system both internally and on the Board of Trustees which may as well have a revolving door, this is arbitrary and unworkable. Are Poppy Z. Brite, Peter Hitchens, and Sasha Grey "Wikipedia people" because they occasionally edit Wikipedia? (Pzbrite, Clockback and Madjabuds if you're curious.) If not, why not, and why does whatever arbitrary line you're drawing to exclude them not constitute original research? ‑ Iridescent 12:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I contributed the Sanger bit to the piece. I don't really have an opinion about whether this should be in WP. I do think it meets the standard of having a valid navigational purpose. Admittedly the list as it stands is terrible, but terrible is not a reason for deletion. It's an exercise in navel-gazing, to be sure, but that's never stopped anyone before... Carrite (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew D. Note that some of the reasons given for deletion are totally irrelevant, in that they are not based in policy - such as that people on the list "can then become further legends in their own mind". So what if they do? Where is the policy preventing articles having that effect? That the article is "bellybutton-facing" is similarly irrelevant. There is no reason Wikipedia cannot have articles about things connected to Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:LISTN: Has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. If not WP:INDISCRIMINATE then almost, but a List Of People Who Are Connected To Wikipedia Somehow =/= a List Of Wikipedia People. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read LISTN. You listed ten sources which mention with a vague hand wave the subject and Wikipedia in conjunction. You have not shown in one iota of this or any other coverage that reliable sources have discussed them a a group. Now go away and WP:BADGER something else. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, which would be a great argument for a keep vote if this were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia, but demonstrating the notability of a group doesn't demonstrate the notability of its individual members. Greater Manchester Police is a noteworthy topic but it doesn't mean we need a list of every time one of their officers is mentioned in the newspaper. ‑ Iridescent 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite, otherwise we might end up with Gene Hunt sexual misconduct allegations or Phil and Nige's favourite whiskies and cigars.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people listed here are all covered in such sources specifically for their Wikipedia activity. They therefore satisfy WP:LISTN which states "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." We clearly have sources which discuss Wikipedia its community of editors and which give notable examples. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc non est quod demonstrandum erat, actually: all you have done is drawn your own connection between a group of people, when reliable sources have not done so for you. That they have all ben reported to have edited WP at some point is not in doubt; what is fundamentally in doubt is that they have been reported by RS as having that connection between them. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Lists of people by organization gives a clue why, and just listing a bunch of unreferenced sources which have "Wikipedia" in the title is not a convincing argument ever to keep a list of so-called "notable" people who are in some way or other related to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Wikipedia people. That said, this list may be best limited to verified notable subjects, specifically those that have their own article, or as red links with at least two sources that provide significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and to demonstrate that WP:BLP1E is not a factor if the potential for that exists.North America1000 16:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was a list specifically and exclusively of people notable for being connected with Wikipedia, then maybe, but even if it lumped people like Jordan (non-notable randomers who edited Wikipedia and became notable for Wikipedia) in with people specifically associated with Wikimedia like Wales it would still probably fail the criterion cited above by Serial Number 54129, since I don't think anyone outside Wikipedia would list such people together as "Wikipedia people". When one throws in the fact that people who are notable, and happen to edit Wikipedia, and have been covered as such in at least one reliable source, like Yaroslav, but not people who are notable, and happen to edit Wikipedia, and have not been covered as such in at least one reliable source, like any regular contributors listed here, this becomes really arbitrary. (Note that I recognize that most of the people listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles are probably not regular contributors to Wikipedia, but notable people who created a Wikipedia account at some point, usually to edit their own page. That's why I say "regular contributors".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources cover them for this, so the list article is valid. No legitimate reason given to deleting it. Dream Focus 22:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "List of Wikipedia People"? Seriously? Might as well say, "List of people who breath... and Eat Food.". Or perhaps, "List of People Not Dead, Who Wore Shorts". If they are notable enough to have their own article, and can have the slightest tangential relationship to WP, then ... A perfect example is Nicholson Baker, whose article doesn't even mention WP (or if it does, is so minute as to be inconsequential). Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a perfect example of getting it wrong because the Nicholson Baker article contains a paragraph about his Wikipedia editing. His experiences were reported in respectable sources such as the New York Review of Books, The Guardian and books such as Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. The idea that this is equivalent to "List of people who breath" is absurd but did you know that list of people is a blue link? That includes people who breath and those who sadly no longer do so. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a perfect example of someone purposefully distorting in order to attempt to make their weak case. First, his experiences weren't "reported", he did a book review, so it's primary sourcing. Other than his own word, there's no reporting that he contributed to WP at all. The second source in The Guardian, appears to be material simply lifted from earlier review. Pretty tenuous. But thanks for making my point for me. Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More blatant falsehood. Nicholson Baker indeed reported his experiences first-hand. This demonstrates that he is comfortable with being known as a Wikipedia editor. Numerous other secondary sources have then reported on this, citing him. I noted Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice? above and it is easy to find more. For example, The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis states, "There have been many magazine articles on Wikipedia, but the most informative and enthusiastic is the novelist Nicholson Baker's review in the New York Review of Books, which captures some of the obsessional quality of editing..." Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from bludgeoning every reply or !vote you disagree with, user:Andrew Davidson; it presents a somewhat unsavoury impression of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I was doing in this case was rebutting factual errors. In the course of this, I provided an additional source. Such activity is expected and appropriate because this is a discussion not a vote. Note that Serial Number 54129 also does not report the facts accurately as I have not responded to every !vote with which I disagree. For example, I have not responded to the !votes of Ritchie333, Iridescent and Hijiri88, even though I disagree with those too. Andrew D. (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reassurance that would be more convincing were you not to have made nearly twice as many edits and added nearly twice as much text to the page as anyone else... >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be good to hear from other editors too so that we can establish a good consensus. For example, while I am also high in the ranking of edits to the page in question, the bulk of the content and edits were made by @Everymorning: but we haven't heard from them yet. That is perhaps because they were not notified of this discussion due to a quirk of the process – the article was expanded from a redirect to Wikipedia community. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page I was referring to. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it did allow Andrew D to sneak in a bit of canvassing. And "blatant falsehood"? Are the NYT and Mirror pieces not primary sources? Again, shows the weakness of your position. And thanks Serial Number 54129 for pointing out the bludgeoning aspect of Andrew D's participation. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weakness? Let's list 10 more secondary sources which cover Nicholson Baker's Wikipedia activities or cite him as an authority:
  1. The Inclusionist: Nicholson Baker's Art of Preservation
  2. Authority and Authorship in a 21st-Century Encyclopaedia and a ‘Very Mysterious Foundation’
  3. Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age
  4. Management
  5. Alternative and Activist New Media
  6. Social Power in International Politics
  7. Six Pixels of Separation
  8. Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World
  9. Standing on the Sun
  10. Cyberchiefs: autonomy and authority in online tribes
And please note that these books and papers further demonstrate the notability of the topic as they also naturally tend to discuss other Wikipedia people besides Baker. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:BLP and as a list that lacks clear criteria for inclusion. It appears to include anybody with an article who is tangentially related. Some articles do not discuss the subjects' participation on Wiki, for example. Some are WMF employees. Other selections appear equally random. The sources presented at this AfD could work for an article on Wikipedia editing community in general. It's a viable topic but not the subject of the article under discussion, which is a list of "people who Wiki" (?) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Andromeda[edit]

Weapons of Andromeda (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)

Appears to be purely primary-sourced fancruft. More suitable for a fan wiki than Wikipedia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Purely unnotable fancruft. The only sources present from the article are either from the episodes of the series themselves, or from a fan site. Neither of which, of course, are reliable secondary sources. Nothing else much of note comes up when searching for additional sources beyond these. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet notability guidelines for fictional elements; self-referenced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evis Xheneti[edit]

Evis Xheneti (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)

Notable solely for her husband; all sources are basically about their relationship. Subject is not independently notable; WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StorageCraft[edit]

StorageCraft (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, with an possible notability entirely reliant upon notices and press releases and mentions; probable paid editor DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG, exemplified by the (paywalled) coverage by the WALL STREET JOURNAL of $187 million in investor capital ventured, indicative of the company's size. What remains is a modest need of repair of tone. Carrite (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's not coverage, just a notice. The standard is not size of company, tho perhaps it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, just a note, I've struck the above bolded !vote since you were also the nom here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly the company has some serious investment behind it, but there isn't any intellectually independent coverage. Most of the references are company announcements or are extensively based on company announcements and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Of the other references, buzzfeed is not regarded as a reliable source and this post was tagged with This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. This huffpost reference states I had the honor to interview some of the executives at StorageCraft and since it is extensively based on interviews with company execs, it fails WP:ORGIND. This esclair.com reference fails as a reliable source since again, anybody can become a "contributor" and there's no editorial oversight. Finally, this forbes.com article was written by an employee of Dell, partners of this company. HighKing++ 15:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our standard is intellectual independence, and that doesn't exist here. If people want to move towards a more objective set of criteria for NCORP (which I strongly support) then we should move towards it, but until then, the standard is sourcing and coverage that is both in-depth and intellectually independent. We don't have that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the 'software' is riddled with promotional copy/buzzwords plus independent searches turned up only this non-promotional link in German Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of published Oz apocrypha[edit]

List of published Oz apocrypha (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:IINFO / WP:OR. A list of non-canon Ozcruft. Brought here not least because one editor flatly refuses to countenance any article that does not include a long list of self-published books from various vanity presses, and expressed the view that if those were not included then the entire article should be deleted. The vast majority of these books are utterly non-notable, with no articles for the book, the author, often not even the publisher. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of the existence of a thing on a Wikipedia page, are not a qualifier for independent notability of that thing, still lest for long lists of examples of that thing, many of which are profoundly insignificant. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Scottandrewhutchins: this is a highly studied, and examined fan culture. It would be appropriate to develop a list like this (though it should be refernced). However, quality of referencing isn't the standard for notability. Sadads (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes it is. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Sadads, may-be you can expand on how to write an encyclopedic article in lack of any rel. sourcing? Eh!~ Winged BladesGodric 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PostmarketOS[edit]

PostmarketOS (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)

At first glance, the topic has several references; however, as raised at Template:Did you know nominations/postmarketOS, it appears that most of these are either not independent, of questionable reliability, or are passing mentions. A search couldn't really find much other significant coverage that may have been missed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Delete (disclosure: I received a neutral notification at my Talk page as a likely interested party as I'd conducted the DYK review of this article) This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sourcing in the article is extremely limited and largely not WP:INDEPENDENT. This may be due to the fact the OS has yet to launch and, with a launch date imminent, the breadth and depth of coverage may soon expand. Userfying the content, and deleting the article from mainspace, would allow the author to expand it - when additional sources are available - and then resubmit it to DYK without falling afoul of the five-day newness limit. My second choice is full delete. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The project has received a very large amount of coverage and interest from media sources (disproportionately larger than any comparable software project) as cited in the article itself. --RaviC (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did some searches and found several reliable-looking full-length articles about postmarketOS. I think WP:GNG is established by these: xda-developers.com fossbytes.com 1, fossbytes.com 2, liliputing.com, hackaday.com, notebookcheck.net. And articles with significant mentions: datamation.com (4 paragraphs), linuxgizmos.com 1 (3 paragraphs), linuxgizmos.com 2 (3 paragraphs). Has anyone looked into these in detail and deemed them unreliable? -- intgr [talk] 12:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are linuxgizmos.com, xda-developers.com, etc. WP:RS? Chetsford (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: Well generally in AfD discussions, 2-3 whole news articles about a subject is considered sufficient for WP:GNG, so the question is, are most of these sources unreliable?
While these sites aren't the pinnacle of WP:RS, linuxgizmos.com has an editorial team and xda-developers was at one point hiring an editor, so not on the level of some personal blog either. -- intgr [talk] 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well InfoWars has an editorial team, so that fact doesn't really establish linuxgizmos.com as a RS in my mind. When I check to see if linuxgizmos.com or xda-developers.com or plasma-mobile.org or wiki.debia.org have been sourced to outlets that are, themselves, unambiguously RS, I turn up nothing. Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the editorial team because WP:RS talks about "editorial control" and having an editorial team suggests that; I also said that in the context that it makes them better than personal blogs. So bringing up InfoWars comes off as a straw man. Point is, these are all small-ish online news websites and on the "RS spectrum" they fall in the middle, they're not "clearly unreliable". I also don't see why you're concentrating on these ones out of all the ones I listed. I never mentioned plasma-mobile.org or wiki.debian.org, which you bring up now, I agree those aren't reliable sources. -- intgr [talk] 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parade March of the People's Liberation Army[edit]

Parade March of the People's Liberation Army (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 fails GNG and WP:NSONG. Chetsford (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection March of the PLA[edit]

Inspection March of the PLA (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 fails GNG and WP:NSONG. Chetsford (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a single sentence that has no references, and is badly written ("is a music played" should be "is music played"). Vorbee (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Cloud (Mario Kart Wii)[edit]

Thunder Cloud (Mario Kart Wii) (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 minor game element that fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A non-notable Mario item that appeared in a single game. The only source being used is the Mario Wiki, which, needless to say, can not be used as a reliable source. After doing multiple searches for any other source , the only place I could even see mentioning the item was here, which alone is not nearly enough to sustain an article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor game item as it appears within one single game, fails the GNG. I highly doubt any MK items other than the blue shell qualify for an article.--Alexandra IDVtalk 00:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mario (franchise) it is conceivable that someone could look them up as search terms. Also Mega Mushroom is another article this user created that is of the same ilk. Whispering 03:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @Whispering: a bunch of other similar item -> game redirects were just nominated for deletion, with no support for keeping them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merely a non-notable item from a video game. Not a plausible search term for a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 04:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nakon 04:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Clue of the Black Keys[edit]

The Clue of the Black Keys (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 meat WP:NBOOK Amisom (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is Nancy Drew, the extremely well-known juvenile book series for girls! The articles on the books in this series and the The Hardy Boys series were added years ago Wikipedia when references were not considered needed. Most of the Hardy Boys books have an online PDF for their reference. These are both well-known series and there are reference works written about both series. (signing later) StarryGrandma (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter when it was created. If it doesn't meet our current notabilty poicy, WP:NBOOK - and @StarryGrandma: you haven't argued that or how it does - then it doesn't have a place here. Amisom (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Amisom, I said, "These are both well-known series and there are reference works written about both series." That is known as arguing that it meets the notability requirement. See WP:EXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @StarryGrandma: But I'm not disputing that "there are reference works written about the series". I know that. THat's why our article on the series, Nancy Drew, meets the notability policy. This book, though, has to meet WP:NBOOK, and unless there are reference works written about the book then it doesn't. Are there referenceworks written about the book? Amisom (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very notable series per above unsigned support, Sadads (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sadads: the sreies is indeed notable and that's why I haven't nominated our article Nancy Drewfor deletion. This book itself is not notable under WP:NBOOK so it needs to be deleted. Amisom (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is abundantly obvious that every single Nancy Drew book will pass NBOOK 4: as they've been assigned for instruction at at least 2 schools (and probably multiple school districts). Yes, my !vote is conjecture and blatant OR, but IAR: common sense has to apply here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vzaar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vzaar (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)

Alexa rank of 96,907. Nothing significant to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildscreen.tv[edit]

Wildscreen.tv (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 significant other than one or two blurbs. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clowdy[edit]

Clowdy (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-type. Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidoosh[edit]

Vidoosh (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)

Alexa is not showing their rank. No coverage, site not working. Complete failure of WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History is not erasable, It doesn't matter how hard you try... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryash (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MainStreaming[edit]

MainStreaming (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 signficant in coverage. Alexa rank of 889,380. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albin Ljungqvist[edit]

Albin Ljungqvist (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 musician WP:MUSIC. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable according to the criteria. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 12:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has participated in MGP which is notable. Has released the music single. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this make each Eurovision national final participant deserving of their own Wikipedia article? I think not. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 19:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply competing in MGP does not make someone notable, especially considering he didn't even advance to a further round. Releasing a single also does not make someone notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now he has made it to the superfinal, so there's that. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:MUSICBIO & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion is getting heated, with personal attacks flying around, and arguments for and against deletion have been adequately stated, so I'm going to put a lid on this now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Valentinelli[edit]

Monica Valentinelli (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)

After trimming down all the unsourced fluffy stuff, I can find no evidence this person meets any sort of inclusion criteria and certainly fails WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the article now has several independent, non-trivial sources and meets GNG and WP:AUTHOR (as lead author of two games, each of which meets GNG - each. in fact, has a WP article of its own ... Newimpartial (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT-space so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any sources or even any evidence that there could be sources? Do you have any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG? Because if you don't, moving to Draft space is a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that a number of additional sources have been added to the article since Calton's comment, it should be given preciely the WEIGHT it deserves. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify on my earlier posting, I would like to affirm my Keep after Newimpartial has added more sources on top of what I added. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a one-paragraph review of book she edited and passing mention in a newspaper story is the best that User:BOZ can scrape up, an obvious fail of WP:GNG. This should have been failed at WP:BLPPROD, but apparently that doesn't apply any more. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, BLPPROD applies when there literally aren't sources, as you ought to know by now. You sexy edit warrior, you. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the previous editor has consistently ignored the actual state of sourcing of the article since his previous PROD, so this !vote should be considered non-compliant with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WorldCat shows Upside Down holdings in mid double-digits. Publisher's Weekly is a trade review, which doesn't count toward notability. There's really not much else here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are incorrect, Publisher's Weekly does count towards notability. It can help establish CREATIVE. Publisher's Weekly reviews only a fraction of what is published. The fact that they chose to review this book is significant. Now, there do need to me more sources to show CREATIVE... one review is not enough. But making the assertion that Publisher's Weekly isn't a reliable source is incorrect. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish you would be a little more careful with your assertions. I most certainly did not claim that PW was not reliable. What I did say is that, a piece in this trade publication is not a very meaningful demonstration of notability and that is because PW does pre-publication reviews for an enormous number of books (~10,000 per year), i.e. "for the trade" to help book buyers/sellers. It is not very selective. Such a review is not even close to the same stature as a post-publication hardback or journal review. As an example, here is a recent PW review, which you can see is roughly what might be on the dust jacket, and here is a recent journal review (from Nature), which is highly selective (this journal does perhaps 2 dozen per year), and discusses the book in substantially greater depth. Using your logic, we should be creating ~10,000 new articles per year for authors with PW reviews. Agricola44 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say that it doesn't count towards notability, it does imply that it's not reliable. Yes, it's a trade publication to help libraries and bookstores choose books: that doesn't make it any less selective. As I've pointed out before, PW only reviews a fraction of the many books that are published every year in both English and Spanish. And no, we don't need to add 10,000 articles a year because they are reviewed by Publisher's Weekly. What we can do is use the PW review along with other reviews to show notability. PW doesn't have to be as selective as Nature to still be selective. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first statement is nonsense because you have causality mixed-up. Not reliable does imply not notable, but not notable does not necessarily imply not reliable. There are many other things that can imply that something is not notable. PW is one of them: it's reliable, but does not imply notability. I hope that is now clear to you. As to your claim that PW's ~10,000 dust jacket summaries "doesn't make it any less selective" than a journal's ~20 in-depth reviews, I'm at a loss. I can't fathom such reasoning. Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Note that Agricola is completely ignoring the subject's main claims to notability, the Firefly Role-Playing Game and Hunter: the Vigil, so their !vote should be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets notability requirements as lead designer/writer of the Firefly RPG and the 2nd edition of Hunter: the Vigil, thus satisfying WP:AUTHOR. Note that all claims in the article are now sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've now been asked twice on my talk to reconsider, I'm going to disagree with you and break down the sources:

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me break that down for you, Chrissymad:
  • the geeknative piece is significant and indipendent, though arguably not reliable;
  • the onyx path piece is not independent and does not itself contribute to WP:N, except that' it confirms that the subject is lead developer of a game which itself meets notability requirements.
  • a three-sentence mention in a RS is quite significant, and is not at all a TRIVIALMENTION in the sense of WP policy.
  • the review of her book in a RS is absolutely signifiant and relevant per WP:AUTHOR, while the sourcing other sourcing is sufficient to document the article in compliancw with BLP requirements.
  • another substantial mention in a relable source.
Here we have an author of several significant, notable and independently sourced books and games, who does meet GNG requirements as well. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of time right now but to respond to a few of these quickly, the first one is in no way useful to determine notability, which is what we're doing here. It's not independent, it's literally one person asking her questions and her answering. It's not coverage. 2.) confirmation of this fact is not debated, but it's not coverage 3.) a three sentence quick mention would be significant if there were any other coverage. There isn't. 4.) not enough to establish notability on it's own and it's not coverage of her 6.) no, her being quoted once from her blog in a 2 sentence mention is not at all significant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, you are taking an idiosyncratic view of what constitutes significant coverage; multiple sentences would always be significant per policy.
You are also taking a personal view when you argue that coverage of the work does not contribute to the notability of the author. This is the opposite of the position in WP:AUTHOR and the general interpretation given to WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said coverage of the work doesn’t lend itself to notability, it does but most of this isn’t significant independent coverage of either the subject or her work and in the absence of actual significant independent reliable coverage of either these sources are not enoughCHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that there is significant coverage of the Firefly Role-Playing Game? Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I added an additional non-trivial mention (the entire article desls with the subject) from themarysue.com . There is no reason to think the subject will become less notable, but it is not TOOSOON either.Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Not great sources but the WP coverage (limited though it is) and being invited to be a speaker at GenCon are indicators of notability. The sources technically meet WP:N and the subject is, IMO, notable. Call it a "IAR" !vote if you must, but I'd say she's notable. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chrissymad's analysis of the sourcing, which I endorse. Newimpartial's analysis is correct if we use the 2006 era standards of what it means to be notable, but Wikipedia has changed since then, and our interpretation of the notability guidelines in practice has evolved to require much more substantial coverage than presented. The basic premise is this: coverage on Wikipedia should not be the greatest amount of coverage a subject has received. If it is, generally they should be deleted unless not covering them would harm the credibility of the encyclopedia. In this case, there is no reason to think they should be covered or that coverage here would not be the most significant coverage they have received. Deletion is the obvious answer. (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, is it really your view that the author of at least two notable works (per their current sourcing and the presence of Wikipedia articles for them) should not have their own article based on the current state of sourcing reflected in the article? It seems to me that - given 2018 standards of notability - the correct approach in Wikipedia is *not* to delete the articles on the authors of recognized notable works, at this level of sourcing, any more than it would be to delete the articles for musical groups with recognized notable albums under similar circumstances. YMMV, TonyBallioni, but I find it hard to believe that it does in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, and she was either a contributor among many or a non-notable staff level position on the other things. I've worked for notable clients in the past and arguably been a part of producing a notable work product, but I'm not notable. The standard is the sourcing for her as an individual. The coverage of her here is more significant than we see anywhere else. The article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was line developer and lead author for both of the works in question - Firefly Role-Playing Game and Hunter: The Vigil - and not "a contributor among many". Your statement, TonyBallioni, is equivalent to equating her work editing an anthology to contributing a story to an anthology. NOTINHERITED applies to the relationship between an anthology and the authors of stories, but does not apply to the relationship between the anthology and the anthologist, or between a game and its author. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are staff level positions that do not imply notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will AGF here, TonyBallioni, as perhaps you are unfamiliar with Tabletop roleplaying publication, but you are simply wrong here. To use the Fifefly example, Ms. Valentinelli had primary creative reaponsibility for the game line, and authored (solely or primarily) most of the books belonging to the line up to 2016. The relationship between her and the game was equivalent to that between Bertold Brecht and his plays of the 1930s, and the presence of collaborators in both cases should not confuse the fact.
On the broader question of encyclopaedic content, WP:AUTHOR seems precisely designed to countence the case where notability attaches primarily to a creator's multiple, notable works rather than the creator's bio per se. It seems to me that pages allowing navigation of a creator's multiple notable works or a band's multiple notable albums is of encuclopaedic value in itself, and in this case the sources allow significantly more. To suggest that the value of those pages depends on whether other sources do, or so not, offer the same information in one place seems to me to reflect a somewhat blinkered notion of what encyclopaedic value is. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is a staff-level position within a larger company: she was hired by the firm to take the actions. She did not create it on her own and use the firm to publish. Even if notability was inherited (which it isn't), she would not be notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again I will AGF, but in the RPG industry it is common for writers to create and manage IP on a hire or contract basis, and it does not affect the authorship of their work, nor the way it is treated on Wimipedia. Q.V. Robin Laws. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superorganism (band)[edit]

Superorganism (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)

Not sure that this article on a band meets WP:BAND. There has been some coverage, significantly from NME, but their first album is not yet out. Tacyarg (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator following discussion - thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep: #6 of WP:BAND applies to the band – four members of The Eversons being present. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
#2 applies as well; take a look at their discography section. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily enough coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig above. There's enough coverage, and they've charted on a US Billboard chart now. Ss112 08:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xender[edit]

Xender (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 mobile app. No coverage in reliable independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to PaRappa the Rapper. T. Canens (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parappa[edit]

Parappa (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 is not a two-primary-topics situation. There is a clear WP:PTOPIC for the term "Parappa" and it is PaRappa the Rapper. I suggest restoring this edit. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense to me. Popcornduff (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as at present (ie not as a redirect). The page for the village of Parappa was incorrectly named, and there are two other PaRappa articles to disambiguate from as well. I have updated the DAB page accordingly. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion argument still there, there are two topics and one of them (the village) does not satisfy WP:PTOPIC. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. The main character of the video game (and TV series) is the primary topic and doesn't require three WP:partial title matches. That leaves WP:TWODABS, and the village can be linked by a redirect hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I dislike repeated relistings, but we are all over the place here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tutor Systems[edit]

Tutor Systems (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 non-notable product which fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Article reads like an ad. Kb.au (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a little surprised by the request for deletion. It may also be due to a misunderstanding (as most sources are in German - I do not know, if Kb.au speaks this language). The applicant has copied links to possible sources. In this regard, I would like to comment on the sources already listed in the article. These are often in German or French. The reason for this is that Tutor System is a German invention and is known in 18 different language regions under different names. It is therefore somewhat coincidental that a publication has been published under this name. In addition, VeriTech (France, Franco-Canada) and TutorSystems (Australia, New Zealand) are terms that are also frequently used in other scientific environments. These are far higher demands than an advertisement.
Six articles are listed in the Literature section. Two are from teacher magazines (Schulpraxis, Lurelu), one is an article in a scientific journal (Biochemical Education), two are publications from the university sector (Cologne, Solingen).
In addition, a tutor-system-box with an accompanying textbook is listed in the collection of the Greensborough Historical Society and as such in the Museums Collections Database of Victoria (Victorian Collections). This is another indication of relevance. --Eruedin (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some other litterature (3x academic, including 1x per reviewed) that gives examples about how to use TutorSystems in primary or secondary education:
  • Prof. Dr. Leopold Mathelitsch, Renate Bindar: Spielerisch lernen im Physikunterricht. in: Universitätslehrgang „Pädagogik und Fachdidaktik“ Naturwissenschaften. University of Klagenfurt, Institute for Teaching and School Development, Klagenfurt, 2011.
  • Alice Vorstandlechner: Mineralogische Themen in der Montessori-Pädagogik. University of Vienna, Vienna, 2008.
  • Cohen, Davene: CAPIT Toy Catalog. Rural Education Programm, Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, Portland (Oregon), 1975.
  • Joan Yares Schussheim: An Annotated Math Lab Inventory. in: School Science and Mathematics, v80 n6 p513-21 Oct 1980. --Eruedin (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple independent references with international coverage. Sufficient WP:NEXIST to pass WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5th Column (band)[edit]

5th Column (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)

Not a notable band nor have they garnered enough attention in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South Korea national football team season[edit]

2017 South Korea national football team season (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:NSEASONS, there is only list of matches with zero prose. Furthermore, I never saw a seasonal articles for the national teams, there is no seasonal articles like "2017 England national football team season", "2017 Spain national football team season" etc.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

2018 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001 South Korea national football team season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Snowflake91 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified these page creator. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing wrong with recording the matches of a team in detail, there is nothing saying that friendly matches cannot be recorded in detail. Inter&anthro (User talk:Inter&anthro|talk]]) 02:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the rational of the nominator of these articles should be deleted because articles for say the Spain national team don't exists is classic WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then read NSEASONS instead, it is CLEARLY written "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.", those article are just a list of matches. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plus as mention above the matches are already covered in South Korea national football team results (2010–19), if people want more detail about the matches, then each match has a match report they can click on to read more. NZFC(talk) 05:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt294069:Using {{Football box collapsible}} or retarget or transculde by using <section begin><section end>. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly on that Animation is developing 11:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge, I kind of agree with Hhhhhkohhhhh, collaspable tables formatting would be much better instead of all these forked pages. Govvy (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that ignores MOS:COLLAPSE, which says "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading". – PeeJay 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PeeJay2K3: So what is your idea? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we need to have some sort of article that covers each team's World Cup and Euros/Africa Cup of Nations/equivalent cycle. Instead of having one article per year, what I suggest would cover approximately two years, starting with the first qualifier and ending with the final of the competition. Perhaps this wouldn't work, but it would be better than what we have right now. – PeeJay 09:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not think 2 years is better because 2 years will be the same status as or even worse than 1 year 's. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NSEASONS. There is no sensible way of merging this anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this somewhat reluctantly as I think the guideline based arguments as well as the practical considerations favor deletion. However as there are arguments on the other side I'd like to see if we can get a little closer to something that can be readily identified as consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bromberg[edit]

Craig Bromberg (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)

Searching for sources I have found none that makes subject pass WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and he appears to fail WP:JOURNALIST as well as WP:ANYBIO. An IP has made the suggestion that this is an auto-bio - that may be true, there seems to be none talking about his twin sons with Hilary Glazer. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 17:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collanos[edit]

Collanos (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)

Mostly created by the company CEO, the company behind the software seems to have disappeared and the company website redirects to a free flash game site in Arabic. This software does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NSOFTWARE and its WP:GNG notability is doubtful. The only reference given in the article to an "Emerging Tech award" given by the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal and searches disclose a reference to a "Red Herring Award", the presenter of which is difficult to discern. Both are obviously promotional. Most of the returns from more-general searches are to download sites or directory listings. Many other results are mirrors or places where the same text that was used here and on the company's marketing was copied in blogs, etc. Evidence of significant, independent, reliable coverage is lacking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Agarwal[edit]

Vishal Agarwal (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 is fails WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR as I could not find any reliable refefences. The Harward University press article has only a passing reference and not written by the subject in question. All links point to the Author's blog Hagennos (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head Start Music Group[edit]

Head Start Music Group (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 organisation. Mattg82 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable as a Record Label. No significant roster of signed artists, no indication the label is important to the development of any musical genre or region. At first glance the label has a notable release, but the article for that album states it was released on a different label. Regarding sources, I'm having a hard time coming up with *anything* on this label that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep মাখামাখি (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No book or news sources found. If AllMusic is correct, they only released one album, Aaron Hall's 2005 work Adults Only: The Final Album. Subject fails WP:NORG, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 20:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete No asserted claim of significance. I discovered that Aulsondro "Novelist" Hamilton-Mangual is also known as Emcee N.I.C.E., but the label is not mentioned on his page, despite his having been "Vice President" of the label.--Auric talk 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: short-lived vanity label... apart from Aaron Hall's album, it looks like K-Ci's My Book was the only other album to be released under the label's name, and even then it was in conjunction with Bungalo Records and Universal Music Group. Head Start's CEO Dwayne Corbitt and president Marc "MDoc" Williams are listed as executive producers on both albums, and vice-president Aulsondro "Novelist" Hamilton-Mangual appears to be the creator of this article ("Danovelist"), so this is WP:PROMO and WP:COI for a label that appears to have been defunct for a decade and has no lasting significance or independent sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rishank Devadiga[edit]

Rishank Devadiga (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 sportsman. Article does not have any references to prove notability. Fails WP:NSPORT Hagennos (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search found plenty of routine sports coverage of him, but I didn't see the kind of coverage I believe meets WP:GNG. In addition, I found no evidence that he had ever competed at the highest level of his sport (Kabbaddi World Cup or Asian Games). Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Projection[edit]

Snake Projection (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 invention that should stay in local papers. Overt attempt to use Wikipedia to promote it. The concept was "created" by non nitable professor and when I tagged the article his name was removed and replaced with unrelated reference which didn't mention the invention. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was edited in response and to address your criticisms regarding notability and advertising. In response, the inventor's name removed as (and as you appear to agree) it's not notable and a further independent reference was added to prove the notability of the projection itself; furthermore a link to the company offering related services was also removed. The page is not an overt advert as the map projection algorithm is in the public domain (see first reference: an academic journal article); the article text itself is factual and fully referenced. Regarding notability, at minimum the Snake map projection is being used for the HS2 London-Birmingham rail route, which is one of the largest infrastructure projects in Europe; and also used on nearly all other UK mainline rail routes. Attempts are being made to enhance the article, constructive criticism is always welcome. Turner537 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted the page may still need work and further detail - however the page does describe a relatively new map projection which has an algorithm published in a respected academic journal (which has been cited in the article) and is notable by it's use on several major national infrastructure projects in the UK. There are also reputable secondary sources which both describe and refer to the use of the Snake Projection, and at least two of these have been cited in the article. Turner537 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Got to agree with Turner537; the references seem to show sufficient uptake to make this a thing. As the article stands at this point, I don't see any issues with either notability (not great but sufficient) or promotional intent. - BTW, the article sure could use an illustration. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_5&oldid=1142616507"