Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph School, Gagalangin[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable parochial school. Not even a high school, per se, so no claim to inherent notability. No info online, except some photos on Facebook. Quis separabit? 23:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How did this stub last for over 11 years without a single reference? Reviewing its history, it was pure WP:PROMO. I searched online, found no evidence of notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer binding, so because the school appears to lack coverage in reliable sources (and indeed, the school does not even appear to have much online presence either), this fails WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communist League of Saint Petersburg, Florida[edit]

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

This article, largely sourced to Facebook and Twitter, fails WP:POLOUTCOMES as an unrecognized [1] political party founded in 2016 with no elected officeholders. A BEFORE search indicates it also fails GNG for not having received substantial coverage in WP:RS. Indeed, this WP article seems to be functioning as the group's website. Chetsford (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources pointed to FB, Twitter and related primary source. Fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No useful sources in the article, and my own searching came up with nothing better. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ridgely Nicholas[edit]

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

Does not a appear to be a notable person as required by WP:GNG. I couldn't find any sources even to verify this basic stub. Being a early 20th century person isn't helping in terms of trying to locate sources; a google book search didn't yield anything useful. Mattg82 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article is not cited and actually contains false information. The first sentence of the article says "Elizabeth Ridgely Nicholas was responsible for the creation of Douglass College at Rutgers University." That's not true, Mabel Smith Douglass founded the New Jersey College for Women (which would later be renamed in her honor) Nicholas may have been the first Registrar, but I can't even verify that and even if true registrar is not a notable position.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWouldn't it be possible to verify by doing a cursory check and providing citations???Djflem (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- Looks like another RAN COPYVIO, see [2]--Rusf10 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely notable, I couldn't find any sources about her that will merit an encyclopedia entry. In addition, the utter false information in the lead section and being created by serial copyright violator means this has no place here –Ammarpad (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No sources show notability. Easily fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Douglass Residential College, for which she was partially responsible for development.Djflem (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)^[1]^[2][reply]

^[3]

References

^ "Nicholas Residence Hall". Rutgers University. Retrieved February 6, 2018.
^ https://upclosed.com/people/elizabeth-ridgely-nicholas/
^ http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/4296138

Those are Wikipedia mirrors and a primary source. Mattg82 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't merge anything. If Biography fails Notability no need of any merge. The above sources are unreliable Wikipedia mirrors and primary source.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nicholas Residence Hall". is not a mirror and says, among other things that Nicholas "one of the pioneers responsible for the development of the college", which would add to history of the development of the college, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News search results turn up single source, which is this AfD subject itself... Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the position is no where close to making on notable, and the coverage is abysmally far from making notability. I understand the desire to avoid presentism on Wikipedia, but we should not do so by creating sub-par articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AFD started by a block evader and all subsequent delete comments are from socks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Campaign Headquarters[edit]

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

Delete as no sources which actually prove the existence of the claimed building. Lack of sources within article, which also means it is doubtable and unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.12.99 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand the gist of this nomination. Substantial content in the article is accompanied by apparently valid citations, and ample sources can be found to further verify that the Conservative Campaign Headquarters is in fact located in Matthew Parker Street. A few examples: "David Cameron delivered a celebratory speech to the jubilant staff of Conservative campaign headquarters, at 4 Matthew Parker Street, Westminster." (2017); "The Conservatives' campaign headquarters has flooded" at "Conservative Campaign HQ, located near the Houses of Parliament on Matthew Parker Street in Westminster" (2016); "A five minute walk from Parliament lies the Conservative Campaign Headquarters – known to all inside the party as 'CCHQ'. Arranged over the basement and ground floor of No. 4 Matthew Parker Street, Westminster, this was the nerve centre from which Lynton Crosby ran the election campaign.} (2015); and most basically the official website contact info. Can the nomination be clarified?--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response:This is a valid point, but the article page is not just of the building, but it is ABOUT it (parlicularly the 'campaigning' section, but also the infobox, which contains references which are poorly sourced and thus constitutes speculation. Further, none of the articles are particularly recent. 151.231.12.99 (talk)

What does the recency of the articles have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseThe recency of the articles indicates whether the content of the article is still valid but I see your point sir. Historic articles can be valid, but must class themselves as such and not puport to be current articles as this article does by use of present tense verbs and participles in the article in question. Merge & Redirect to Conservative Party (UK) may be a better option? What do you think, or anyone else who wishes to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.12.99 (talk)

If something needs updating then you add Template:Update, you don't start a process to delete over 200 edits spanning 14 years. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response age is irrelevant, it is quality that is important. And this article lacks it. Many of the edits also appear to be Sockpuppets - not all, but a significant number, which leads me to also suspect it of Category:Articles with a promotional tone breach, as suggested if you read lots of parts of the article. 151.231.12.99 (talk)

The edits by the sockpuppets have been reverted, don't you worry about that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It isn't a building (and the article makes that clear), it's a function. That function has gone through at least two names, and several physical addresses. All of which are adequately sourced and easily sourcable to anyone who wants to extend this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:NPOV criteria not met as the function fo it seems to be affiliation with Conservative Party (UK) which is not enough. Needs more. Function appears to be 'campaigning', but that entire section is unsourced. Also promotional langyage throughout which is in breach of G11 151.231.12.99 (talk)

What part fails NPOV? And why would that be a reason for deletion, rather than fixing it by editing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response*Campaigning section is promotional and in breach of Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION above, heightened by it being largely (if not entirely) unsourced - only sources are linkedin profiles of staff there which makes it more promotional! Location section is also not from a neutral point of view, as it appears to point to its advantages of the building 151.231.12.99 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not a single one of the sources in the 'Campaigning' section of the article are LinkedIn profiles of staff. The sources that are LinkedIn profiles of staff are the list of key staff in the infobox. 'Campaigning' section includes 16 distinct sources, three of which are national media articles. Saying that the mention in the 'Location' section of it being close to Parliament is a breach of NPOV is stretching credibility. Mauls (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject is notable (as evidenced by the sources from mainstream media), the article has multiple reliable sources, including recent sources. The claims made in the nomination above about the state of the article can be seen to be patently false (there were many sources within the article at the point of nomination). Mauls (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable subject, especially under its former name, Conservative Central Office. Numerous references,. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gudinva Saloh[edit]

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

Non-notable politician at best, hoax at worst. All provided online references are either dead links or do not mention the subject. Searching for the subject online reveals nothing except mirrors of this article and of Water supply and sanitation in Burkina Faso where the assumed logged-out IP of the article creator added his name. A search for "Saloh" on the Burkinabe government web site also came up empty. Article was recently restored per a WP:REFUND request after having been deleted per WP:PROD in August 2017. --Finngall ^talk 21:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get the same lack of hits for his name (and still only 32 hits if you search only "Gudinva"!) Other people were Minister for Water and Sanitation and Minister for Agriculture and Immigration (which the article originally said) at the time. Links at Talk:Gudinva Saloh § Hoax. I can't verify that Saloh exists. Mortee (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a cabinet minister in a national government is certainly a valid notability claim in principle, but the condition is that we have to be able to properly verify that the claim is actually true — which none of the sources here do, and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator and Mortee at finding anything better. I'm in no way an expert in Burkinabé politics, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find and show sources which actually verify that he ever really held the claimed office — for example, it might be possible that the reason we're not finding anything is because there's a spelling error in the title, and we'd find proper verification if we knew the correct spelling — but as things stand right now, this does indeed look very much like a WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no opinion on whether this is a hoax, but certainly the utter dearth of sources providing any coverage suggests the topic lacks any notability whatsoever. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:48, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60 Bizarre wars, battles and weapons of history (book)[edit]

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

Article is about a self-published e-book from CreateSpace and is sourced entirely to its Amazon listing and possibly written by the contributor of this article. A BEFORE search fails to find sufficient additional sources to pass WP:NBOOK. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chetsford. No substantial references to independent reliable sources or other indicia of notability are presented, and I found none in a Google search. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at all. Not shown to be a WP:RS source. Self-promo. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability is shown and article is basically a description of structure of the book. As per the comments above this comes across as an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a publication. Dunarc (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete-unless we are to make an article for everything Buzzfeed publishes as well ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:02, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen Hendricks[edit]

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

Fails GNG, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR. While a prolific author, his books are not widely cited or a subject of much beyond book reviews. He himself doesn't receive coverage. h-index of 8 on google scholar. Being a department chair does not seem to establish notability for PROF. Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As you know, I am new to editing and creating wiki articles; this was one of two articles that I created and I have frequently returned to it to learn the editing process. I felt comfortable editing something that I created rather than disturb someone else's work while I learned. But, I have enjoyed making many minor edits to many other wiki articles. I modeled this article on the following: Yahya R. Kamalipour, Christopher H. Sterling, and Michael C. Keith (other communication studies scholars). And, I tried to improve this article over those examples as some of them do not even have sources. While I know your decision to delete this article rather than help correct it has already been made on your part, I will still address your concerns. Regarding notability for academics, this individual meets far more than one of the criteria listed in WP:Academic/WP:NProf. He has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as noted in the article from the National Communication Association. He held the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic society, the Broadcast Education Association which has more than 2,000 international educators as members. And, his research has had a significant impact on his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There are many citations listed in the article of reviews of his work that speak highly of the work's contributions. Regarding his h-index of 8 on google scholar, that is a significant ranking for his discipline of communication. Wikipedia's own article on h-indices observes that "The h-indices for ("full") professors, based on Google Scholar data ranged from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography." Lastly, unless the professor does something scandalous he/she does not receive [media] coverage about themselves -- they are not celebrities. Rather, they are called upon by the media as experts about their areas of study (not about themselves). And, this individual has indeed been cited in numerous American national media outlets ranging from NBC News, FOX, and Congressional Quarterly magazine. His work has been recognized by American national media. Respectfully. Updater500 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the National Communication Association’s Applied Research Division’s 2011 Distinguished Edited Book Award is NPROF(2). Regarding whether a one year term as president of Broadcast Education Association ([3]) meets NPROF(6) - I will let more experienced academic !votes weigh in.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, the National Communication (along with its divisions) is the largest scholarly organization in the communication discipline. It publishes 11 scholarly journals and is highly respected in the discipline of communication and media studies. NPROF2 specifically states: "Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section)." Regarding the Broadcast Education Association presidency, the BEA president only serves one year. Prior to serving as president of BEA, the president has already held the roles of Vice President of Academic Affairs, Secretary/Treasurer, and member of the Board of Directors. In total, it takes 8-9 years of service on the BEA Board of Directors to become the president. It's not just a "one year" term. Also, regarding your earlier reference to the google scholar h-index, the Wikipedia WP:Academic entry cautions: " For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability." Updater500 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Care to show how NPROF(1) is met The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.? Yes, google's h-index isn't perfect - e.g. not finding citations in books. However he does have a verified account and his books are attributed to him on scholar, and it doesn't appear that they are widely cited in journal articles. Not every professor is notable - you need to show significant impact.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF(1)-- As you probably know, WP:ACADEMIC states that (1) can be met in various ways. Worldcat lists the individual's books in more than 3,300 libraries. Note that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF states: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Further, Wikipedia states: "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." The article cites those peer reviewed publications of this individual's work. Again, regarding your references to the h-index, WP:PROF guidelines state: "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." He has met more than one to meet the NPROF(1). Updater500 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator claimed that the subject's work, which is what his notability is based on rather than his inside-leg measurement or his favourite colour, is not "a subject of much beyond book reviews". That is simply a statement that it is not a subject of anything beyond the best possible sources for establishing notability per WP:AUTHOR. We don't expect politicians to be the subject of sources that are not about politics, or musicians to be the subject of sources that are not about music, so why introduce this ridiculous bar to authors that sources about their writing should be excluded? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Berezikova[edit]

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

Fighter does not meet WP:NMMA; no top tier fight and last fight was 3.5 years ago. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request I would appreciate it if the editors who said that WP:GNG is met would please show the specific sources that show there are multiple significant independent reliable sources that cover her. I'm seeing lots of routine sports coverage of her fights, but that's not enough to show notability. She doesn't meet any SNG criteria, so her notability depends on meeting the GNG. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 13:53, 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 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator - GNG is not met.PRehse (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. She was one of the leader of the Anti-Maidan movement. She's mentioned as one of the organizers by the Economist[4]. Here's another article referring to her as one of the Anti-Maidan organizers - it only lists three organizers, and she's one of the ones mentioned [5]. The article states that the leaders are "comprised of a medley of high-profile politicians, Cossacks, soldiers who have fought with pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine, and patriotic personalities including minor celebrities". Seeing as she doesn't fit any of the other categories, it's pretty safe to assume that she is, at worst, a "minor celebrity" in Russia. Also referred to here as one of the celebrities linked to the Anti-Maidan movement. "Berezikova, one of the main Russian celebrities featured in the group, is a decorated sambo, boxing, and judo champion, as well as one of Russia's pioneers in WMMA." [6] She's a celebrity in Russia, one of Russia's pioneers in WMMA, and notable enough to be referenced in multiple articles as one of the leading organizers of the Anti-Maidan movement. Fraenir (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plenty of Russian news hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.255.14 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having coverage doesnt not mean notable even the coverage are from reliable source. Being in a movement/as a member in an organisation doesnt translate to being notable. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:NMMA she is notable because she has participated in more than three professional fights. Per WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:NMMA - it is three top tier fights - she has none.PRehse (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berezikova is a champion in Judo, Boxing, Wushu, Sambo and Muay Thai.^[1] She is an athlete with a significant fan base. She is a W5 World Champion. These wins and the significant coverage about her indicate she's notable enough for an entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.awakeningfighters.com/athletes/julia-berezikova/

Keep per Fraenir. GuzzyG (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She doesn't meet the notability criteria for any of the martial arts. There's no evidence of any significant titles in any of her combat sports. She's not even mentioned as a judoka at judoinside.com so there's no evidence of any widely recognized championship. Having said all that, I do believe there's enough to show she meets WP:GNG--and that's all that really matters. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 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 keep. Much obliged to Mortee ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penny floater[edit]

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

Unclear whether term exists

Besides the article having collected quite a bit of nonsense, none of the claims in it are references. But that's not even the main issue: my main problem is I cannot establish whether that term even exists. When searching ngram search there is no evidence for that term that predates this article. Also I couldn't find any web sources predating the usage of this term.

So if that is a proper term, then I will gladly retract my suggestion to delete the term. --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could quickly find that isn't twitter or a wiki-mirror is this book, but it doesn't seem very serious and only uses the term in passing. It might be a real term, but it's very hard to find. Chris857 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That book is from 2011, Wikipedia 'introduced' the term in 2006, so it could easily have come from Wikipedia. Is there any indication for the term before Wikipedia? --denny vrandečić (talk) 21:58, 23 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) 21:56, 23 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) 21:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the term definitely exists, it was used when I was a kid in the 1990s for a cheap plastic football. However, as much as I like to be nostalgic, this is certainly non-notable. As most a redirect to Ball (association football) (as a possible search term) could be considered. Giant Snowman 09:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see at least the term itself exists and wasn't invented. --denny vrandečić (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I kinda agree with a redirect however I think maybe to Football (ball) might be more appropriate that the association page. Govvy (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I submitted the article to AfD originally, but given the work that User:Mortee put into it, I have changed my mind and vote for keep. The article now cites sources, and we found a few mentions older than the Wikipedia article, so I am fine with keeping it. Thanks for the work! --denny vrandečić (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm really borderline on this one, so apologies for the long message. It's a very common object known by several names. That suggests notability to me, but because they're cheap, ubiquitous and generic there's not a lot to say about them, and little in-depth coverage accordingly—not enough to very clearly meet the GNG. I added sources to the article, the most substantial being [7]. Here are some passing mentions of "penny floater" just for reassurance about that particular term: [8], [9], [10], [11]. I don't see any need to find examples of use from pre-2006. It would be surprising for an obscure Wikipedia article to have introduced it into such natural usage and casual online text has a tendency to rot away over that timescale. (As an aside, the term "penny swerver", deleted from the article earlier, seems to also exist but be local to Sutton Coldfield [12]). There's enough here that it's better than a Wiktionary entry, and no other article yet mentions it so I wouldn't want to simply delete or redirect. I'd argue merge, but it's much too specific for ball and Football (ball) is quite solidly about balls used for professional sports and their near equivalents. Adding the penny floater detail there would be a little awkward imho. Still, that's definitely option B. For option A I vote keep as a low-value but harmless article about a common phenomenon. Denny you're very welcome Mortee (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mortee: I have no strong opinion or stake here, but your additions have improved the article significantly. Thank you. Chris857 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant improvements by Mortee. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep After the initial nomination on January 23rd, numerous sourced edits indicate passable notability as a concept subject. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:33, 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. per WP:NBOOK (h/t SarekOfVulcan). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scrappy Little Nobody[edit]

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

Panned, minor book by otherwise notable person. Delete it and add a sentence to the main article. Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I'm sympathetic to the nomination, I think it's been covered enough for its own article. Besides the links already included, there's http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/what-we-learned-from-anna-kendricks-memoir.html, https://www.vogue.com/article/anna-kendrick-scrappy-little-nobody-interview, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/11/14/anna-kendrick-scrappy-little-nobody-filmmaking-process-vs-writing-process/93794118/, and others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator), per WP:NB. The book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", in this case one of the listed options, "reviews". These reviews, already referenced in the article, as far as I can tell, have not been sponsored in any way by the author or publisher. Additionally, the "other considerations" all fall in favor or neutral for the book. I will grant that there is not much material to be quickly located, but I believe there is more that could be written about this book. Besides, "too short" is not a reason in and of itself to delete. ⁓ Hello 71 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "too short" is a very strong reason to delete, if the same material all also belongs in the author's own page. Having the same info in two places is not a service to the reader. Anmccaff (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to make it 'notable'. Can be expanded using the available sources - whether it can be expanded enough to justify a standalone article rather than a merge to Anna Kendrick remains to be determined. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Michig says: notability has been established here, and thus deletion (and its concomitant deletion of edit history) would be inappropriate. But that keep result does not preclude the interested editors from discussing a further editorial decision to merge the brief book coverage article back into the main bio article until such time as it has been expanded sufficiently to support a separate article about the book. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:NBOOK and no-one has mentioned any policy-based reasons for deletion. A negative review (and I would call it only somewhat negative rather than a panning) of a book is is not a reason for deletion of the article and neither is being a short article. I would support merging the article (in its current state) if such a merger were proposed. Meters (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reasons for deletion and notable enough to keep. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect- I think I'm outnumbered, but no reason this could not be redirected to Kendrick's page.. reviews of a book are not useful content without any other identifiable information on the book. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:05, 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) 18:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaraj Warrier[edit]

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

Could not find any significant coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BLP Hagennos (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial covering including thr Entertainment Times reporting that "At one point of time, no stage show was complete without a caricature show by Jayaraj Warrier where he mimicked politicians, literary figures and film personalities, in the context of the current social and political happenings." FloridaArmy (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not able to find WP:SIGCOV, only some passing mentions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ENT as prolific contributions to his art, does have some rs coverage such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR as all roles appear to be minor. A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per K.e.coffman above. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Issa[edit]

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

Borderline puff-piece on local (Ft. Worth) businessman; arguments for notability are weak; how many thousands of these people have been in some "40 under 40 to watch" article and never panned out as actual notables? Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There x under x lists are all the rage, but they are not the type of award that makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon D'Lima[edit]

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

Principal of local school. Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable.scope_creep (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-moot point now, but I would have CSDed this guy ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:03, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Whitehead[edit]

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

Non-notable college basketball player. Played on various minor-league teams after college but never suited up for an NBA team. Played a total of 21 minutes in one season for a German league pro team. Also fails general notability guidelines. Last played in 2009, unlikely to become any more notable. Rockypedia (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He actually meets WP:NBASKETBALL having played in the Australian National Basketball League. But I would also argue he meets GNG (even if barely) with articles like this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He meets WP:NBASKETBALL as he played for the Gold Coast Blaze of the National Basketball League (Australia). I incorporated the sources provided by Rikster into the article and added a bit more. Also, he actually averaged 21 minutes for German club ALBA Berlin, both in five games in the ULEB Cup [13] and in 27 games (22 starts) combined in the Basketball Bundesliga regular season and playoffs[14]. Dammit_steve (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NBASKETBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NBL players meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Media of South Korea. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hankyungoh[edit]

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

Extremely limited, if not non-existent, sources attest to the "fact" (if we can call it that) that Hankyongoh exists as a neologism in South Korea. The page also contains a criticisms section that is not backed up by any sources, Korean or otherwise, making this a borderline attack page against the three newspapers. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media of South Korea. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lizq[edit]

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

article created by the author of the sources. fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG this is a serial WP:REFSPAM user Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - did you perform WP:BEFORE? There are references to the site here, here, here, and here - I found these in about 5 seconds on Google Books, where a query for Lizq Oman returns over 11k hits. Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Parsecboy's comment and my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Nejd, Sultanate of Oman. There seems to have been a bit of a WP:AGF malfunction here. – Joe (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Parsecboy. It appears the nom didn't bother with WP:BEFORE. They should be reminded that WP:GNG only requires the existence of reliable sources, not that they already be placed in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blind nomination without appropriate checking. Article is full of academically published sources. And arch site is geographic feature same how we accept hamlets and villages with only one source. This is perfectly acceptable artice. Proper WP:BEFORE will have prevent this misnomination of article with this multiple solid references. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Plenty of good mentions in books. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLANWEL[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nejd, Sultanate of Oman[edit]

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

the article was created by the author of one of the sources. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author (User:Pyule/Paul Alan Yule) is also an established expert on the archaeology of Southern Arabia, so I don't see any cause for concern there (see WP:SELFCITE). In my experience excavated archaeological sites are almost always notable, because by nature they are the subject of multiple peer reviewed sources, albeit ones that may be difficult to find. I haven't been able to specifically verify the sources cited in the article, as it seems 2 of 3 aren't online and the other one is a 550 page thesis I don't fancy reading through, but in the absence of a more compelling deletion rationale I'm willing to take them on faith. My mistake. This source is available online (behind a paywall) and includes several pages on this site. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is a source that was written by the creator of the article himself. GNG requires multiple reliable sources. I could find nothing else concerning this site that attests to its notability. This seems like a case refspam which specifically says "Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work". Dom from Paris (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the author is an established expert in the field, as well as the main investigator of this site, so there is no reason to discount papers written by him. That particular source was published in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley–Blackwell. There are more sources cited in the article, which are less easy to verify, but which I see no reason to question. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the German language source (the only other that is not written by the article creator) there is no mention of this site unless it has another name in German. In a before search I found nothing on this subject. If it is notable should there not be more sources than those written by the person that discovered the site? I may have totally misunderstood the idea of refspam but I cannot believe that it is ok no matter how well you are respected you are to create articles about your own work and reference your own publications as the sole proof of notability. Doesn't this pose a problem of conflict of interest? Dom from Paris (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully trust the search facility in PDF documents. Maybe @Azd0815: can help us out with a page reference? – Joe (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Roe and WP:TROUT Dom (per this and a related AfD) - this is clearly a notable site. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable geographical feature with sufficient solid references. Invalid reason for deletion. Nominator should read WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL1 to prevent this kind of blind misnomination in the future. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have corrected the points mentioned my critic regarding al-Negd, Oman: I entered an image of the coin which was found, the page number of my publication in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, a separate citation by the National Museum, and the date when a team visited the site. I point out that the find is new, only made in 2014 and published in 2016. If this does not suffice the director of excavations, Khamis al-Asmi, was present and other witnesses, who can be contacted if further doubt exists. I am busy correcting other points (Lizq) which my critic has cavelled. I am grateful for your help.Azd0815 (talk) 08:59, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nial[edit]

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

Sourced solely by self-published references for nearly 9 years. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never resort to it but this is a case for WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There is a reasonably large literature on Nial, and it seems to me that sections not devoted to the syntax could easily be sourced properly, so this should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article issues can be fixed and do not justify deletion - there are plenty of sources available in Google Books for starters. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable programming language, just from looking at the Google results and the Google Books results. Rockypedia (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It a fifth generation language. More than coverage for keeping and expanding the article. scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OG Cuicide[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Fails WP:MBIO & WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Only press releases and blog posts exist regarding the topic can be found on the internet. — Za wl 16:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Google News does not give any of the required coverage for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Chang Stadium[edit]

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

Fails the GNG, not having been covered in-depth by any reliable source at all, as far as I could determine. Only news coverage I found was a passing mention of its being used as a temporary practice ground by Chonburi F.C. while their home stadium was being rebuilt in 2009.[15] Other Google results are forum posts, mostly asking for directions as it appears to be really obscure. For context, this post contains some photos.[16] It's more of a field with a concrete stand rather than an actual stadium. Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC) PS PROD contested by MensanDeltiologist. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable soccer field. Rockypedia (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator has been indefinitely blocked for problematic editing, especially not adding sources to articles, so won't be able to comment here. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I contested the prod because the reasons given were because it was unreferenced and no longer used. In my edit summary, I wrote “You can ask for reference and fact it s no longer used doesn’t mean it isn’t notable.” For example, the first two Yankee Stafiums don’t even exist anymore yet they are still notable. The reference situation discussed in earlier comments is another story. It is one thing to ask for references and another to not be able to find any. I didn’t look because even if I found one, I don’t feel comfortable enough with the subject to know what was relevant and what wasn’t. So I left it to others to look into. I am neutral on the subject of whether or not to delete but based on the reasons given in the prod, I felt it deserved a shot to be improved. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 07:10, 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. A merge discussion can be held on the article talk page if desired, but from the sources provided it seems to be notable enough. ansh 666 07:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper (cryptography)[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sneftel (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be two non-notable neologisms shoved together. Only one source for each usage of the term, neither one peer-reviewed. Neither concept seems to be in general use.

Keep - I'm inclined to say this article needs improvement, not deletion. It's clearly a real thing, and I already found one article in a reliable source, semi-current, about it very quickly. Rockypedia (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to Salt (cryptography); I'm not opposed to a straight keep. The term is well-defined in blog posts [17] [18], I've never heard the definition The pepper is small and randomly generated for each input to be hashed before and am unsure whether it is ever used in that way. However, in book references, [19] say things like There is really no analysis of the benefits of a pepper out there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I've found enough sources to convince myself this is a real thing. The Guardian, A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography, are a couple of WP:RS. I also found a slew of bloggy-type things which are not WP:RS, but still convince me that it's a real term in common use in the crypto community. It's probably notable on its own, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't be covered better as part of Salt (cryptography). I could go either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls![edit]

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

Self-promotion page about a local band, authored primarily by one of the band's members, and non-encyclopedic in tone and content. I'm requesting that someone else complete the AfD process as I do not have a Wikipedia account. (completed for 104.184.22.222) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:YAMB Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Article was recreated under the radar a year after the first AFD. No evidence that the band has achieved any musical significance nor garnered enough coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 22:34, 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 delete. ansh 666 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

42nd Regiment - Gallipoli 1915[edit]

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

English book not released yet and doesn't appear like there is coverage on this unreleased book yet. Sources in article do not establish notability of the Turkish (or unreleased English) book - one source is the book itself, and the other source is there to source post-Gallipoli postings of the regiment. In my BEFORE for additional Turkish sources (all be it hampered by my far from perfect Turkish) I was unable to find additional reviews. Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Does not meet WP:TBK guidelines and waiting for translation is WP:CRYSTAL. However, non-delete results are preferred. Information about the units could be merged with Order of battle for the Gallipoli Campaign or potentially more specific Landing at Cape Helles. Book could also eventually be used as a WP:RS for those articles. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 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 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article about the 42nd Regiment of the Turkish Army, which might warrant merger with Order of battle for the Gallipoli Campaign or Landing at Cape Helles, it is an article about a book that fails WP:NBOOKS. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This an advert for a book. We cannot have an article on every book that someone think of publishing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 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 delete. ansh 666 07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Viengluang[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO Domdeparis (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 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 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two of the cited article are about her and her role in the series. Meets the general notabiloty guideline per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to pop culture and galore? If so they are both WP:INTERVIEWs and as such are considered as primary sources for notability purposes. GNG requires in depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the first requirement of [for actors], "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She has only had a major role in one television show. Not notable. Cait.123 (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She does pass that guideline. She has a major role in multiple seasons of a hit television series. She also meets the secons criteria of having a following. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any real WP:RS to establish WP:N. Most of the sources in the article are blogs or social media. The Fine Magazine item is an interview. Science Fiction is just a passing mention. Galore is another interview. These are not what we're looking for in the way of sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after improvements to sourcing. ansh 666 07:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (2015 film)[edit]

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

I put a proposed deletion (PROD) on this article, giving my reason as "There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references aren't even about this film, others are not significant coverage." The creator of the article, Goodbadnugly, removed the proposal, giving as reason that the film derives notability from its connection to the earlier film Plan 9 from Outer Space of which it is a take-off, and from "the presence of notable internet personalities". As anyone familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards will know, a subject is not considered to be notable because of association with other notable subjects, and must have evidence of notability in its own right.

My reason for this nomination is the same as the reason for my earlier deletion proposal, but here is a more detailed account of why the cited sources don't do it. Out of the eight sources cited, four are about the earlier film, and don't even mention this one. Not only are the other four not significant coverage, but also none of them is an independent reliable source either. Two of them are at www.horrorsociety.com, which not only publishes user-submitted content, but also says "You want to promote your movie, do it here." Another source is at letterboxd.com, which reproduces film data from TMDb (www.themoviedb.org); TMDb consists entirely of user-submitted content, and appears to be if anything an even less reliable source than IMDb, of which it is clearly an imitation. That leaves just one more cited source, which is at plan9movie.com, and I think the URL says it all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson:, take another look? I was able to dig some decent sourcing out of Google. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I looked at the new sources you have added. I started describing each of them, as follows.

(1) An interview with the director on a web site which calls itself a "fanzine", and that looks like exactly what it is. (2) A brief article which mentions the original film and a "biopic" about the director of this one, but devotes just two short sentences to this film itself. (3) A page about the film which includes a link to book to see the film, and gives some information about it, much of it quoted from the director, on a web site which "allows arts community partners to enter events". (4) A page on a local news site for a town (Roanoke, VA) announcing that the film is being shown in that town. (5) A fairly brief note about the film on a web site called "cinemablend" I have been unable to find anything significant about that web site, apart from its own "about" page, which is full of promotional hype, such as telling me that "its [sic] the only place to catch up on the pop culture [I'm] already excited about", but doesn't give me much actual information. Even if the web site is a significant reliable source (which it may be, but I'm not convinced) its brief page about this film is not substantial coverage.

At this point I decided I couldn't afford the amount of time it would take to write similar individual accounts of the rest of the sources, but none of them looked better than those I have described above. All credit to Tokyogirl79 for putting in the work to find a number of sources to add, but as far as the quality, rather than the quantity, of sources is concerned, if that is the best that an experienced and reliable editor such as Tokyogirl79 can manage to find, them I'm afraid it strengthens, rather than weakens, my impression that the film does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SF Signal is pretty well thought of - it has actually won three Hugo Awards for its work, It's generally seen as reliable. It's an interview, so that's mostly just there for people to pull from in the future if they want to expand it. The main sourcing that I'm looking at as far as notability goes are the reviews in Screen Anarchy (formerly Twitch Film) and Dread Central, as they're both considered to be reliable sources as far as film and horror content are concerned. Dread Central's actually a fairly major website in the horror world, along side Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting. io9's article is decently sized and they're also generally seen as a reliable source as well despite the Gawker affiliation. Scream magazine looks OK - it's more of a UK thing, but it's sold on some US shelves (some light coverage of that here). In any case, the two reviews should be enough to establish notability. The local coverage is greatly depreciated on Wikipedia, so that's more something I added so that people could flesh out the article later if they wanted - they're more likely to do it with the sources if they're already on the article. As far as Cinema Blend goes, it's generally seen as reliable on here. It's used as a source in some academic texts like thi, this, this, and this, for example. It's certainly not the best possible source, but it's an OK one. I think that there's enough notability here for it to barely squeak by. Not the greatest amount, but just barely enough. (However also not so much that I'd lose a ton of sleep if it wasn't kept.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many of the references were unreliable but now that better references have been added it can be seen that the reviews in established film reliable sources Dread Central and Screen Anarchy as well as coverage in io9 and Scream magazine enable a bare pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the original may have had some problems, I think it just about passes notability. The film itself is pretty horrendous, however. Definitely not worth the many minutes I wasted watching it. Stui (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As said above, the newly introduced sources, while not the most in depth, are enough to let this one barely pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:51, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanmelbu[edit]

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

Not verifiable. No references, and I can only find Wikipedia mirrors when looking for sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~There is this~~. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Huh, "... the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online". 80.219.255.14 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete not finding anything substantive. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 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 Moot due to concurrently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantra (2016 film) (2nd nomination). . DMacks (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra (2016 film)[edit]

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

I've removed a cherry-picked gushing review, but it's not at all clear to me why this film is notable or whether the references are genuine independent third-party sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Mwesigwa[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 14:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a local radio personality on a single-market local radio station is not an automatic notability freebie, but this isn't referenced to anything like enough reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:GNG: the sources here are a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself, a blurb about a tangentially related event sponsored by the radio station which completely fails to mention Mwesigwa's name at all in conjunction with it, and an entertainment blog whose first section in its header bar is titled "Celebrity gossip" (hence not a reliable source). None of these are notability-assisting sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-market radio personalities are almost always non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 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) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irvan Smith (Mr. Vero)[edit]

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable businessman/programmer. Prose barely makes sense and references are either trivial mentions or advertorials. Declined PROD. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Saying that the Prose barely makes sense is an overstatement. It's clear this was written by somebody who is not a native English speaker, but that's not a reason to delete. The diction and grammar can be cleaned up. The real problem is that he really does appear to be non-notable. My own searching failed to come up with anything. I searched for him by name, and also searched for the two companies he's associated with. All the sources listed in the article are in Indonesian, so I had to rely on the auto-translations. That's an admittedly poor way to evaluate something, but from what I can see, there's nothing in the sources provided which helps meet WP:GNG. If somebody could point out some better sources, and provide good English translations, that would be helpful. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no true notability; refs are industry type and not in depth.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to satisfy notability requirements. Appearing on a judging panel with Larry Page is not enough nor is being CEO of a startup that is not itself notable. I'm afraid this is a puff piece created and defended by a single-purpose account. WP:BIO, WP:1E and WP:COMPANY refer. See also WP:SPA Mcewan (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say also that it's, let's say, surprising that the article has been around for 5 months or so. Mcewan (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcewan: Unfortunately the backlog of unreviewed new pages goes all the way back to August of last year. – Joe (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Fair enough - and as an only intermittently active wikipedian, I bear my share of responsibility for that :) Mcewan (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator and others that this individual does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puff piece about a businessman lacking coverage in reliable sources. The claims to notability are weak, and in any case weren't widely discussed by sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 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 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) 21:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Francois (economics professor)[edit]

Withdraw-ref provided. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

An economics profession working in various university. No major achievements or any major influence on economics field ; Fails WP:NACADEMIC CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text of the article as currently written is a copyvio, but he has a GS h-index of 56 and over 13,000 citations [20]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Since a pass of WP:PROF seems possible, I cut out the copyvio text. Now it's short, but ethical. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RePEc lists him in the top 20 Swiss economists, out of some 930 total [21]. That's good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1 for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I'm calling it a pass of WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 02:08, 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 redirect to Shinfield#Institutions. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosfields School[edit]

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

Independent primary phase school, no indication of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Blank and redirect to Shinfield#Institutions where it is already listed. Closer please remember to place the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a primary school with no clear indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Particularly per the history of AfDs for other similar lists being closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Synapse Films releases[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No indication of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly legitimate list article split off from main article. Consistent with policy. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG is policy. This is nothing more than a catalog. How is this consistent? --wooden superman 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively keep and improve. As per WP:NOTCATALOG, lists of creative works are permitted if they aren't simple lists and if they're written in an encyclopedic manner. Although Synapse is merely a film distributor, they include original bonus content with each release, which I would argue warrants its own list (or, at the very least, a mention). In its current state, the list is quite simple and unencyclopedic, but could be worked on to meet list standards. I've made this a tentative keep because the company itself isn't tremendously notable (although it was NfD in the past and kept), which might make proper sourcing and encyclopedic writing a challenge. Nanophosis (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of DVD or BluRay releases is essentially a list of products .... WP:NOTCATALOG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. An indiscriminate list and non-encyclopedic cross categorisation based on a distribution company. The company itself is marginally notable at best, so the list amounts to WP:Promo product listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Synapse Films. This list probably doesn't meet WP:LISTN, but could fit in the main article, which is short enough to fit a list of releases sans the "item code" and "edition" which decidedly fail WP:NOTCATALOG. ansh 666 07:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bell (businessman)[edit]

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

This individual seems more notable for his failures as a businessman than anything else. He is also alleged to have committed massive VAT fraud but has not been convicted as far as I know. I think he fails WP:PERP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., WP:PERP. samee ^talk 06:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No clear claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine cup[edit]

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

Dictionary entry with little chance of expansion. Doesn't seem very notable, could maybe be incorporated into a glossary or list somewhere? In fact, the whole content of this article could probably be merged into the columbine cup paragraph in Masterpiece, which is the only article that links here anyway. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as per below.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary entry; it's a stub. See WP:DICDEF which explains the common confusion of these. Also, merger and deletion are incompatible – see WP:MAD. See also AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My apologies, it's a dictionary entry with one sentence worth of encyclopedic information, which is just about all it'll ever have. Not every design of cup is notable. Anyway, I'm well aware of MAD, which does not in fact say that merger and deletion are incompatible, just that they should be sparingly used. Since the content to be merged was written by a single author (a bot has no IP rights, I added an AfD and you added a picture – neither of which are to be merged in), and the only link *to* this article is *from* the article it should be merged into, there's no problem simply mentioning the author of the content in the edit history and deleting the article.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 15:21, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It just needed expanding which I have done. it now easily passes the GNG with entries in three works that are authorities in their field:

The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts - Oxford University Press

The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance - Oxford University Press

The Penguin Dictionary of Decorative Arts by Honour and Fleming

I hope the nominator will now graciously withdraw the nomination.Philafrenzy (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article of encyclopedic value. Far more than a dictionary entry. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:13, 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 regarding the band and Zauvijek moja, and redirect the rest. WP:NEXIST isn't a free pass; sourcing must be presented either in the article or in the discussion for it to matter. In any case, there's no consensus regarding the band and their Eurovision song, which may or may not pass WP:NMUSIC depending on how you interpret the criteria, and there's no evidence presented that the others are notable. ansh 666 07:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Name (Montenegrin band)[edit]

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

fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. I will be bundling the nomination of the various pages connected to this group that are not independantly notable Domdeparis (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band member's pages as their only notabilty is linked to this group

I am nominating the group's singles as their notabilty is not independent of the group and both articles are unsourced with the exception of youtube videos

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for the band. They have been mentioned by a solid source, BBC, for the song contest controversy so that might establish basic notability. But I can find little else about them so I would not dispute anyone who concludes that they do not have enough notability for their own article. Also, Definitely Delete the articles on the singles and individual members, for the reasons stated by the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Competed in Eurovision Song Contest and fared well. Per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: could you indicate which criteria of NMUSIC they fulfill please and which sources meet GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per the criteria #9 of NMUSIC the group would have had to have been placed 1st 2nd or 3rd in the Eurovision song contest to be considered as maybe notable, this criteria was validated in a discussion here in which a certain number of the Wikiproject Eurovision members participated and supported. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band - WP:NMUSIC #9, winners of Europjesma; and #10, performed music for a notable work of media i.e. Eurovision. Keep "Zauvijek moja" for Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings #5, same as for the band. Redirect band members. OZOO (t) (c) 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would probably point towards WP:NEXIST as well. For reasoning of Keeping this article. As well as for keeping the band members articles.BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhitpa[edit]

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

Not finding any coverage in reliable sources to even verify this cheese. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't found any reliable sources, but I've found at least one mention of "Brokpa Zhitpa" [22] which suggests this isn't a hoax. Without a speaker of Dzongkha (the language of Bhutan) to look for sources in that language, I doubt any will be found; Google translate is of no help here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's is a decent source for 'hitpa' cheese from Bhutan. Go figure where the 'z' came from. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. I've looked again and found nothing that mentions this in the context of Ema datshi. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Calleja[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. of the 15 references 4 are the subject's web site, 1 is the game's web site, 1 is this work profile, 1 is written by him, 4 don't mention him, 2 are passing mentions, 1 is a broken link and 1 the claims to having been nominated for a webby are false as he is not credited [23]. So 15 references and not a single one supports notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creator is here to promote themselves/their organization exclusively. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional, non-notable ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, aside from the clearly promotional tone of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad Hip Hop[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 13:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a couple of trivial mentions, nothing much out there to show the notability of this group. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on whether the sources presented are enough to clear the notability bar. ansh 666 07:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kagen Sound[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO the coverage is not sufficent to pass WP:GNG. Having a notable client that may or may not have bought one of his works does not help prove notability. The in depth coverage is of a local variety and not sufficient IMHO Domdeparis (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage is State level and adequate. Here's a CBS article from Denver. There is also Colorado Public Radio profile already in the article. Here is a largish Associated Press profile article. AP is not local coverage, it is globally syndicated. There are weaker items like Hackaday out there as well. Notability met. Some of the primary sources should be removed though. Also note his former name is "Kagen Schaefer". 198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find sufficient justification in Wikipedia's notability guidelines to justify this article. --IndyNotes (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see someone comment on the references provided in this discussion before closing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment J04n from what I can see the Denver CBS video is still local coverage, and the AP video doesn't seem to have been taken up by any media outlets. I may be wrong but it seems that AP produces and collects stories and then sells them on and this story doesn't seem to have been taken up. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:25, 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 no consensus on whether internationally-known but NY-based sources The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Wall Street Journal - yes, Wall Street is in NYC - count as local coverage or not, and thus whether or not they count towards notability. ansh 666 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry & Ida's Meat and Supply Co.[edit]

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

Relatively new restaurant with two locations that may not exist in a year or two - 80% of NYC restaurants fail in the first five years. Most of the article just summarizes their menu and tries to make it "interesting" which is routine business differentiation content. Refs are routine reviews in local papers, so this fails CORPDEPTH. Not encyclopedic at this point. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is nothing about this AfD on the article itself. It wasn't removed: it was never added. What is going on there? The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i made error in not-saving after i added the afd template (the tab was still open, unsaved); bot caught it. good bot. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 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 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of substantial coverage of this institution. Whether it will exist in the future is irrelevant. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument. The refs are just reviews in the local paper about a new restaurant. This does not establish notability and the content is basically an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the coverage is substantive. Meets the general notabiloty guideline. Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Village Voice is pulitzer prize winning digital media, not a local paper. The NYTimes is a national paper, and New Yorker magazine is certainly not a local paper. The reviews are full-length reviews, not brief listings. I didn't write it as an advertisment, it links to a lot of our other articles. Most promotional articles are orphans and do not develop links. It is part of New York's culture and has parent articles including Delicatessen. I didn't use any marketing language and I have no connection to the business - I have never even eaten there, but I'm interested in food-related articles in general and they got a lot of significant writeups (especially for butchering live eels and smoking them in the back). Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:AUD. The Village Voice, Gothamist, Tribeca Citizen and Eater NY can all be characterized as local, but the New York Times is clearly national in scope, as is the New Yorker. There are sufficient mentions to meet WP:SIGCOV. Meets WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Jytdog that the cited sources don't establish notability. Sources like New York Times, Village Voice, and New Yorker, can generally be considered as national media, but they include local-oriented content like routine restaurant reviews. Counting those as GNG sources would make just about every new restaurant in NYC notable. Toohool (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are full-length reviews published in the Food section, which is a completely separate section from the routine reviews in the "NY/Region" section (here is an example from the local section) - though this would still be considered regional as it covers NJ as well [24] Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I forgot to vote. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CLCStudent (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete The NYT and the New Yorker may be nationally distributed, but as far as things in New York are concerned, they are local papers. Gourmet would have been a different matter. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Wall Street Journal? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downsway Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Tacyarg (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted and SALTed by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 13:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Students Organisation pakistan[edit]

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

~~May be notable, but currently a poorly sourced political screed. WP:TNT applies. Kleuske (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)~~ Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. As a poorly sourced political screed WP:TNT applies. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Kleuske: please note WP:TNT is not a policy or a valid deletion rationale. And that you as nom are saying it may be notable. Therea May Smith (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
- @Therea May Smith: You are right about WP:TNT as a deletion criterion. The fact that it may be notable is not the same as saying it is. Having done some research, I find no sources that support notability. I updated nomination accordingly. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe F.C. Peshawar[edit]

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

Fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails on notability so delete it. M A A Z T A L K 15:00, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quetta Zorawar[edit]

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

Fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Giant Snowman and Störm. Delete it. M A A Z T A L K 14:59, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Lajpaals F.C.[edit]

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

Fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as it fails on issue of notability. M A A Z T A L K 14:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi United[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:FOOTYN. Störm (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources now found to show notability. Giant Snowman 13:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per below. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree with other wikipedians. Its not notable per guidelines, so it should be deleted. M A A Z T A L K 14:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

I based my previous vote on the weak references mentioned in the article. But there are some references mentioned in the news like geo [25], the nation [26], The news international [27], so I would change my vote to weak keep. M A A Z T A L K 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has anyone checked news sources and coverage on this football club before voting? eg. Karachi United make a dream visit to FC Barcelona (SAMAA News), KPT edge Karachi United in Quaid-e-Azam Football (The News), FIFA World Cup Trophy tour to open new avenues for enthusiasts (The Nation) and more. I would advise against blind nominations. Mar4d (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plays at the highest national level: 2016 Pakistan Football Federation Cup. Here's a news article on their women's division: "Karachi United’s women football team is transcending borders and kick-starting a revolution" from Dawn (newspaper). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d and K.e.coffman comments. samee ^talk 16:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources have been identified above that confirm the club plays at the highest national level Atlantic306 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use improved referencing and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:18, 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) 18:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad United (football)[edit]

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

Fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I couldn't work out if Islamabad United cricket club and the football club are part of the same group, is the football club still in operation? Govvy (talk) 13:11, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Bazigar[edit]

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

Fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:30, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manish om singhania[edit]

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

Article appears to be non-notable. The group he runs doesn't have a website, he doesn't even have anything attributed to him on IMDB, and three of the four citations are profiles (one for a dating website). Under WP:AUTHOR, he doesn't meet any of the criteria, and he doesn't meet criteria under any other criteria, either. Finally, this appears to be a commercial piece (albeit poorly written and phrased), with the writer saying that the photo was sent to him. It's not quite WP:SPEEDY (under A7, although you also could argue it under G11) but I'd argue that it's close. I also cannot find confirmation that he had anything to do with many of the attributed shows. This topic was speedy deleted the last time it appeared under both G11 and A7. Stui (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, fails WP:BIO, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:NAUTHOR. Note that Manish Om Singhania was recently speedied G11, and I believe this is easily eligible. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 14:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just a promotion for the individual and has many unsubstantiated claims like : at the interview level, he was denied a seat on the basis of his Surname fails [WP:NBIO]] WP:NAUTHOR --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 15:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Entirely non-notable.This is G11-able stuff, by miles.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Geo Super Football League[edit]

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

Non-notable league seasons. Fails WP:FOOTYN's league criteria. Störm (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:55, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miyambi Yatsopano[edit]

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

Likely non-notable textbook. The books does seem to exist, but little other than references in bibliographies can be found As such I can see little evidence that this book is particularly notable. Travelbird (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a biography masquerading as a book entry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William McNeill Carleton[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTINHERITED (from his notable father) - little grounds for notability described in article. BEFORE doesn't show much more.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; trivial. Could be briefly mentioned in article as to his father. Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And/or his father-in-law, who was a member of the Onslow family on cadet branch to the Earls of Onslow. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a tragedy for the family but not notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No doubt a useful career, but not all that notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 09:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kittipong Loon-jak[edit]

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

~~Fail WP:GNG Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)~~ I withdraw my nomination If GiantSnowman changes his vote, please close this AfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: This player passes WP:NFOOTBALL, see below, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to find news about him now because he played around 10 years ago. This article https://www.fourfourtwo.com/th/features/ydthiimaehngaemklng-aekhngplaathuukhanngchudtamnaanaithyliik-2008pacchcchubanepnyaangair?page=0%2C2 (written in 2017 when Samut Songkhram FC was delegated to level 4 league) wrote about Samut Songkhram FC's best season in 2008 when the team was in the top level (Thailand Premiere League, which is considered fully professional league) including short information about him helping the team. Thus he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lerdsuwa: I hope that you can improve this article by adding this source, then I withdrew this AfD, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: I have added this source and added some more ref I can find about where he played. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lerdsuwa: Yes, I saw it, but it needs more improvement Now it passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, so i have withdrawn my nomination. But there is a Delete vote from GiantSnowman, we can not close this AfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as shown above Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: Please help add source above then I withdrew this AfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:50, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Ansari[edit]

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

Not known UnitedPowers ^Talk 10:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

known. stay. Do not delete Bahman Ansari (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he is an Iranian Poet and History Researcher. Must stay. Should not be deleted.‍‍‍B.sooshiant (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best Persian Historian. Do not delete. Alireza57alireza (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is that the article is not sourced to works about him, but works by him. The sources do not in any way demonstrate notability. Being a historian is not in and of itself a sign of notability. Some historians are notable, others have not contributed a body of work that meets the notability guidelines for authors or academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep wrong venue (talk pages do not fall under AFD), will be automatically deleted if XXXX (TV channel) is deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 14:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:XXXX (TV channel)[edit]

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

Non-referenced closed TV channel ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 09:19, 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) 01:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XXXX (TV channel)[edit]

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

Non-referenced closed TV channel ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 09:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd argue a redirect to MTV Flux, but this seems like some TV crufter completely misidentifying a standard satellite channel testing period for an actual channel airing content. Lasted less than three days (or judging from it 'ending' in April AND November, nobody actually watched this besides the employees at a headend testing the network) and not even referenced in the Flux article itself (which is also awful, but at least aired for two years). Nate • (chatter) 19:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced satellite-cruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flint McGlaughlin[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Other editors have reviewed the content of the article and discovered that the citations either lead to the subject's own web properties or 404. Once those unreliable citations were removed, there is nothing left of note. Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:BIO. My Google searches found loads of references to things he's written, events he's spoken at and so on but nothing substantial which is about him and could be used to reference an article. Neiltonks (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; trivial; reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for posterity: The reviews of the content that Shritwod mentions above look likely to end up in WP:BLP/N/Archive262. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the original editor that removed the 404'd citations. My team and I did a load of research (background check for a client) and noticed nearly all citations were links to web property he owned (whois check confirmed). As Shritwod pointed out, once all the non-existent/unreliable citations were removed, there's no need for an article. 73.104.46.148 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; note anon rewriting and expanding of the article, currently going on does the article no good, and seems to indicate the article should be deleted ASAP, ~~maybe even~~and definitely salted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC) (updated 06:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed the badly-sourced puffery. Neiltonks (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP continues to edit-war their puffery in ([28]): they seem to have no gusto to back down, so I repeat my suggestion that the page should not only be deleted ASAP but also salted to prevent further repetitive re-introduction of bloat regarding the subject of the article (who doesn't pass WP:GNG anyhow). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bio has been pending deletion for 7 days currently. Nothing has changed, and it's now a thin and consistently vandalized page. I suggest it should be deleted & salted. 98.231.72.3 (talk) 09:00, 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhloch Singh[edit]

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

Article was deleted before per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhloch Singh and recreated very soon but issues are still same.

Still fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only one particular editor has so far edited this article who also happens to be the creator, and this is alone suspicious. I have also nominated the article of his non-notable organization (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Finger Protests), who's article was also created by the same editor. Capitals00 (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed and accepted. Having few editors shouldn't be a reason for suspicion. It has very credible sources. The subject is notable, so is his org. I would request you to reconsider. I'm not a wiki wizard like you, I really appreciate your perspective and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisMr (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

You are clearly ignoring the in depth coverage of the individual and the org by reliable, credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisMr (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC) ThisMr (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ThisMr (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Above user is the creator of the article and has canvassed.[29] Anmolbhat (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am not 100% convinced of the notability of the person independently of the organisation. If the content about the org is removed, and the sources that are primarily about the organisation (only mentioning Singh's name) are discounted, what remains is a bit thin. I still think it's just on the "keep" side of the notability threshold, but I could be convinced that it is not. If deleted, it should be merged and redirected to Middle Finger Protests. --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least provide sources that made you think the article should be kept? I see none. Organization and him, both are non-notable. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing changed since previous AFD, still a non-notable individual with no major coverage in independent sources and this comes after years of existence on Wikipedia. Notify Reddogsix, the nominator of previous AFD. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at these sources:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/life-style/giving-the-dead-their-dignity/496529.html http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/life-style/gyan-zone/world-of-activism/377908.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/People-were-afraid-to-protest-against-Manu/articleshow/7273856.cms (this was the front page of TOI main edition) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/school-bus-attack-in-gurugram-if-they-get-away-this-will-happen-again-says-petitioner/articleshow/62666776.cms

There are more sources that can be quoted if required. ThisMr (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NBIOand fails WP:GNG all references are passing mention or can be sourced to the individual or his company. @ThisMr: All the sources that you provided even though in notable publications are sourced to the individual and hence does not satisfy WP:NBIO as per the basic criteria WP:BASIC --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 20:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user:ThisMr had implied in his rebuttal to the AFC that the article has passed AfC. But when looking at the AfC for this article and the users talk page I find that the AfC was deleted as abandoned and then the user went ahead and created a new article in the Mainspace. That article was also deleted via an AfD. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 20:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks references needed to establish notability. References are passing mentions. reddogsix (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reference a passing mention? http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/life-style/giving-the-dead-their-dignity/496529.html ThisMr (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is certainly not in-depth. reddogsix (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle Finger Protests as it would be useful to keep the information there. The person is a member of the organisation , but it is the organisation which has received the coverage. Actually even Middle Finger Protests should be merged to Murder of Jessica Lal. Instead of having so many fragmented pages, it would be much better to have it all together.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are valid and clear. This conversation is nonsensical. Check the website to see how brilliant the work is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.76.106 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — 49.207.76.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article still lacks in-depth, non trivial sources. reddogsix (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable individual with no major/in-depth coverage in independent sources. The author also appears to have COI with subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:10, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R.S. Praveen Kumar[edit]

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

The draft at Draft:Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar has today been declined as not adequately showing the subject's notability. Without seeing the previous articles and drafts it isn't clear how much the notability has changed since WP:Articles for deletion/Dr Repally Shiva Praveen Kumar and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar, and since the deletion of R. S. Praveen Kumar, Dr Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar, and Dr. R S Praveen Kumar. Continual creation with slightly different titles does give rise to suspicion of gaming the system. David Biddulph (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Possibly notable as an advocate of rights for the Dalit people of India. See https://www.google.com/search?q=%22R.S.+Praveen+Kumar%22&tbm=nws Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are enough to keep the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI had voted keep, but seems that this is promotional, with it being constantly re-created after deletion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The coverage is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Agree with nom: this has the hallmarks of COI / UPE, with troubling creation history and language such as "...widely known as the brain behind the success story of the Everest conquerors..." (!). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nowhere close to garnering sustained encyclopedic coverage.Trivial name-mentions in news-pieces are not sufficient enough.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt Non notable individual. Constant re-creation of an article that was deleted in AfD. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr_Repally_Shiva_Praveen_Kumar)--Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 04:03, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Finger Protests[edit]

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

A non-notable organization that clearly fails WP:ORGDEPTH, and only one particular editor has so far edited this article so far and he also happens to be the creator. I have also nominated the article of its non-notable founder (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhloch Singh (2nd nomination)), who's article was also created by the same editor. Capitals00 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable - insubstantial RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. There is enough in depth coverage and the org has been behind some of the very important cases in india. Has credible and reliable sources. ThisMr (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ThisMr (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Above user is the creator of the article and has been canvassing to this AFD.[30] Anmolbhat (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a little difficult to see the notability because there are some sources that are marginal, primary (based on press releases) or not actually about the organisation, but I believe the coverage is sufficient for ORGDEPTH. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult at all and there are no sources to establish any notability. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources to establish notability only if you take into account the citations/references.ThisMr (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional article failing WP:ORG. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable organization as does not have any significant coverage other than primary sources. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 20:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ORGDEPTH and promotional. MT Train^Discuss 05:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable organization and the author appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you shed some light on the close connection? It will be really enlightening for the community.ThisMr (talk) 17:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kiernan[edit]

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

local career politician and although he was county sheriff for many years, I don't see anything to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing but local press coverage and very limited coverage at that. Rusf10 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator non notable, doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey There is insufficient evidence of standalone notability at this point. WP:BEFORE and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.
As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Alansohn (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local politician with absolutely no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. The closest thing I can find to anything particularly notable during his sheriff's career is this very brief mention. [[31]]./ TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:46, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Vishwakarma[edit]

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

Seems to be in the news a little for her activism and educational work. But I think this fails WP:GNG. She is not an elected politician. Most of the articles say she moved from California to India. She works to provide menstrual hygiene education. "Vishwakarma’s campaign has come into the spotlight at a time when there is a buzz around the Bollywood movie Padman, set to hit theatres on February 9." Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 05:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator nothing here to substantiate this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Page Page may have some issues in beginning, but I feel it must be retained and this meets WP criteria of notability, and this satisfied WP guidelines on G11 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 08:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. Fails WP:NBIO. Just another promotional article. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. FITINDIA 17:07, 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 merge to Monmouth County, New Jersey. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Lanzaro[edit]

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

County sheriff, fails WP:POLITICIAN, other than a few quotes nothing is written about him in reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentContingent on outcome of discussion at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as to whether or not subsection Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs should be split to stand-alone article, this nomination-decision should postponed.
Delete Agree with nominator non notable, doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs Djflem (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey No evidence of standalone notability at this point, but WP:BEFORE and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.
As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:26, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slidebean[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable software. The references are PR or notices-, or placements on a list Some of them, such as the one on "500 startups" are straightforward advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 23 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) 21:56, 23 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) 21:56, 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 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One assessment of sources in the article. It's a mixed bag: there's some borderline-significant, but pretty redundant, coverage from presumably reliable sources with named authors, though their editorial standards are not readily checked. A Latin American editor may be able to speak to the reliability of the Spanish-language sources, but on balance, the topic probably weakly meets GNG. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
TechCrunch 1			~ Nothing about the company, and a pretty minimal overview of the software	~ Partial
TheNextWeb	Presumed	? Article is an outside contribution whose views are disclaimed by the publication; reliability of the author is not established		? Unknown
La Nacion (archived)	Presumed	Presumed	~ Nothing about the company, and a pretty minimal overview of the software	~ Partial
Bloomberg			Just an index entry for the company	✘ No
Ethos3	Presumed	? Publication is another company in the presentation field, so conflict of interest is a possibility	For the software, not the company	? Unknown
Hongkiat	Presumed	Presumed	For the software, not the company	✔ Yes
El Financiero	Presumed	Presumed	~ Brief coverage of software; very little about company	~ Partial
Frenchweb	Presumed	Presumed	~	~ Partial
500.co	Ad copy written by the company itself			✘ No
Crunchbase	? Source of data and editing process are not clear	?	Good detail on finances and personnel	? Unknown
Success in Business podcast	Presumed	Presumed	The business is the central topic of a 15-minute interview	✔ Yes
TechCrunch 2			~ Pretty minimal	~ Partial
Slidebean 1	Company's own website			✘ No
TechCrunch 3			More in-depth coverage of both software and company	✔ Yes
Slidebean 2	Company's own website			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—swpb^{T go beyond} 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you all for the thorough review of sources and reliability. As of now, there are 3 sources that are have been concluded as reliable enough to meet GNG requirements. I would argue that the TheNextWeb source meet those same standards. The reporter, Anna Heim, (https://thenextweb.com/author/annaheim/) while an independent writer now, has 100+ news articles on TNW and published several times a week from 2011 to 2015. —jpczcaya^{T 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete Crunchbase is basically a database sort of thing - not independant. An interview is not useful as it is not independent; hongkat is a blog; "techcruch 3" only has what the company says about themselves. No good sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also Swpb, for future reference, Tech Crunch is not considered an independent or reliable source for purposes of notability. It is routinely ignored in every deletion discussion I've been in for at least the past year. I haven't really seen any argumentation in favour of counting it since late 2016. Same with Crunchbase. The interview in a podcast is a non-independent primary source as well. Some of the other sources you have checked off as meeting the GNG also appear to be non-reliable or user generated. Anyway, from review of that table, I see nothing that meets the GNG. BEFORE doesn't yield anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor TonyBallioni: Wikipedia:Interviews disagrees with that as a blanket rule. I don't know for a fact that this interviewer is independent, but there's no evidence they're not, and that's where the burden lies – unless you can show that this interviewer has a specific conflict relating to this subject, they are assumed independent. As for TC, could you point to the discussion about its use toward GNG? I don't put much weight in statements of the form "we just don't trust this source" with no justification given, and I don't think a closer would either. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Swpb: unfortunately, the notability guideline disagrees with you. It requires secondary sourcing, which interviews are definitionally not. The essay you site does not have the force of policy, and even if it did WP:ORGIND would apply. Interviews have zero weight in AfD discussions, unless they are subject to coverage in reliable secondary sourcing afterwards (the interview of Sarah Palin by Katie Couric being an example of when an interview leads to secondary coverage). Any active AfD closer will know that TC is ignored here. I don't think there have been any formal discussions on it, but even the most radical inclusionists have stopped trying to pretend it is anything other than recycled press releases. Basically, your analysis of the sourcing in the table above is far outside the mainstream of most AfD sourcing analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - To editor TonyBallioni: Repeating things doesn't make them true – the letter of WP:ORGIND does not support you. Your position on interviews is simply not the consensus position. If it were, you'd be able to show it. Unless this interview was produced by or with the funding of this company, it is independent. Reliability could be questioned, but that's a separate criterion. No one is taking your "delete" vote away from you, but you do not get to make up your own guidance and insist we're all bound by it. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, it is the consensus position, and that (non-policy) essay does in fact support it, especially for this sourcing. The text of ORGIND does actually support what I say: it does not require it to be funded, it excludes any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it. That quite clearly includes interviews (even though they are spoken). Your views are far outside of the normal consensus here, and the closer should ignore them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        You have interesting definitions of "written by" and "quite clearly", but more importantly, waaay too much emotional investment in this right now. I'm not dying on this hill – everyone can read the guidelines for themselves. Take the hint: go outside, and slow your righteousness roll by about 47 notches. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No need to discuss me personally. I'm not emotionally invested in this at all. I only pinged you because you seemed unsure of your analysis and I was trying to let you know how the sourcing is typically viewed in AfDs (which along with the Wikimodel are organic, so have no need for an RfC when something simply becomes the usual practice). If you don't appreciate this, I'm sorry. The closer is free to review as they see fit, but interviews, recycled press releases, and the like don't count towards our inclusion criteria, where in practice we require intellectual independence, not just organizational. The sourcing here fails that, so the article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I like that you can't imagine you could be talking to someone with comparable experience to you. No, this must be my first AfD, and you're here to do me a favor. Right. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional article on a nn software / company. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NSOFT. Sources listed above are insufficient. "Success in Business podcast" is an interview / possibly paid placement, while TechCrunch is so indiscriminate as to not qualify for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 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 keep. Despite the seemingly sensisble WP:GEOFEAT argument, there is no way this AfD can be assessed other than as demonstrating conensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is a couple of burials, but notability is not inherited from dead people. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability guidelines are quite clear about historic sites. This area merits inclusion. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you will please read: there's no claim that it is a historic site. It' merely implied that having a couple of governors buried there makes it historic, which by our standards isn't true. GO find some discussion from outside sources of it as an historic cemetery, and then we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's notable as the resting place pf these historic figures. Just as ghost towns and other landmarks are notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Ghost towns are notable because people find ghost towns as a class notable, and they write books on them which tend to talk some about every last ghost town in the country if they can get info. Burials are incidental mentions in bios, but if you can't say something about the cemetery as a whole, if you can't get people to write articles or chapters in books or whatever, then they aren't notable. There are cemeteries which do get such treatment, but this isn't one of them. Mangoe (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GEOFEAT "

*Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.
Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiableinformation beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." Neither of these criterion are met.

Additionally, per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#No inherited notability

Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected areas of historical signifcance are notable per guidelines. This isn't a geographical feature it's a historic cemetery. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing to show that the cemetery is an area of historical significance. Having an important person(s) amongst your clientele is not an indication of notability as has been shown above. If it was an historic feature, you would expect to see some significant writing about it. However, other than trivial mentions, I can't find much about the cemetery. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 19th century cemetery, one of many in city. Eventually to be merged, once created, list of ...in Newark. Until such time keep to allow for further reaserch.Djflem (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the archdiocese if it isn't expanded. If it is going to just be a few sentences it is best to have a chart of all the archdiocese properties with mini histories. I do not have time to expand this article, I am working with the Library of Congress today. --RAN (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nothing wrong with an article on a 19th century cemetery that normal editing can't fix. Having several notable burials makes it notable. Serioisly, how much in depth coverage can you expect on a cemetery? Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works out to an argument that hardly any cemeteries are notable. There are cases where cemeteries get coverage in their own right (e.g. Rock Creek Cemetery in DC) but simply saying that someone is buried in one is an incidental mention, and it's a safe bet that most such mentions in WP come from Find-a-Grave anyway, which is essentially another wiki. Mangoe (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every large civic cemetery needs a long list of buried to be WP:NOTABLE. There's no issues here at all that I can see. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability here for the cemetery, as described above. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not one person who voted keep has given a good reason of notability. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#No inherited notability specifically says that notability is not inherited by people. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:18, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Grissom[edit]

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

Notability concerns. This podcast [32] (1-2 minutes in) has him describing his article and gives a better summary than I could. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There is no claim to notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:33, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Nia[edit]

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

I do not believe this YouTube couple/family are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I see the sources in the article, however, most of them are about single events that happened with this family that got them notoriety (two scandals, an alleged miscarriage, a few viral videos). Not to mention it seems awfully promotional, with statements such as "They have over 100 videos that exceed one million views, eight videos with over 10 million views, and three that have over 20 million views" and also later on in the intro "The video was an instant success and went viral in march of 2014", which seems like it was written by someone trying to paint them in a good light instead of in a neutral way. Also, plenty of the sources are from either Facebook, YouTube, or a photography website of the article creator. In short, I don't see how they are any more notable than other family vloggers who document their lives on YouTube. This family just happened to have a few controversies, but nothing that really makes them stand out. Just wanted to add one more thing, I went and checked and the creator of this article is Matthew T Rader, who is related to Samuel Rader (see this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/infinite-magic/3604255935), and Matthew made no indication of being connected to Samuel while creating this article. Andise1 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia that says people related to the subject can't create/contribute to their articles. It is not a promotional piece at all. It actually highlights a lot of negative press they received as well, the information is very unbiased. The information about video views was inspired by Wikipedia articles about other YouTubers, if that is considered superfluous then remove it. I think your reasons for deletion are not fair at all. Their video of them lip syncing in the car went incredibly viral and started the whole trend of making videos of lip syncing while driving. Prior to them, such video were not common at all. This family has been discussed and talked about in just about every major media outlet on numerous occasions. They were also very connected to the Ashley Madison hack scandal.

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTubers, you will many many YouTubers that far less well known than they are with much less subscribers. I looked through just the A's and found YouTubers with less than a million subscribers and virtually no media attention whatsoever. So according to that list, they are absolutely notable enough to be on wikipedia. Actually, they should be added to that list. Matthew T Rader 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple more notable things about them have been published in well known magazines online. The Verge in June 2017 said Sam caused one of the five biggest YouTube scandals of all time.^[1]. That's pretty notable. And they were also considered the 3rd most influential YouTubers of 2015 by The Daily Dot in December 2015^[2]. Those are two very notable things about them, that many, if not the vast majority, of other YouTubers with pages on Wikipedia cannot claim. Matthew T Rader 23:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete. To respond to the article creator's point about creating or contributing to articles to which they are connected, have a look at WP:COI. It is, at best, generally a bad idea, and usually held to be a good idea if you indicate your connection to the subject somewhere early on in the piece. Commonsense would also dictate similarly, I should have hoped. My rationale for the weak delete is that the vast majority of the sources here are YouTube videos themselves and the like. Happy to revise this opinion if the non-social-media material is shown to be sufficiently reliably-sourced. Claims of "starting a trend" are always difficult to support in this day and age, but if they can be, then there's a point in their favour. WP:OTHERSTUFF-related arguments to keep are neither here nor there, particularly when YouTubers and other such famous-for-being-famous people are involved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced.

I just reread the COI rules, I unintentionally missed those suggestions. I don't think a deletion is necessary, but instead have someone edit it to remove any appearance of a bias. This article was not written at their request. How can I include in the article my relationship with the subject? Please look at all of the non-social media sources, many of the sources are from very reputable News and Magazine sources. I was a wikipedia contributor before they became well known. Matthew T Rader 04:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to include your connection in the article (since it's not "your" article, in that anyone and every can edit it, that would be counterproductive). As per this part of the link I referred you to earlier, there are a couple of simple steps you can take, and I'm sure that - in the event that the article is kept, or if it can indeed be re-written to get over the assorted difficulties it has at present - someone or several someones will edit it accordingly anyway. The fact that you created it doesn't mean it can't be kept, either, so while conflict of interest is important and there are those sort of "arm's length" things to do as per earlier, I wouldn't be concerned about the article being deleted purely for that reason. Having had another look at the non-social-media sources - my initial look at them was earlyish in the morning, so it never hurts to have a more thorough look later in the day with a working brain - my earlier opinion is confirmed. The couple read as having been the online equivalent of a nine-day wonder, albeit a nine-day wonder caught up in the more notable Ashley Madison hack. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone, or a family, that has been watch by people all over the world over 750 million^[3] times not be notable? Matthew T Rader 13:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Raw numbers don't confer notability in and of themselves, for a start. Notability comes from in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources, and usually over a sustained period of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While I agree that this family does have a presence as vloggers I am not satisfied that they have any more presence than others in the same genre. I believe that the only major thing that could save this article is the fact that they have won an award from a major organization such as the Artists Music Guild. However, even with that Mr. Rader sourced that award back to a wikipedia source which would be improper. Sourcing is clearly outlined at WP:Sourcing. While I can be persuaded to change my stand on the delete, at this moment several things would have to be changed within the article and more sourcing to prove notability would need to be established. If I may make a suggestion, it would be this. I would research other articles found here regarding video bloggers and see how they are written and formatted so that should this article survive this WP:AFD it might not continue to find itself in the line of fire. Follow this link to a list of similar articles >[33]--Canyouhearmenow 01:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Completely notable. They have received a large amount of third party coverage, including articles in People magazine and being profiled for ABC's Nightline. They have over two million subscribers which more than meets the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER section 2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Cait.123 (talk) 18:34, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Thompson (investor)[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources imply notability, a quick search online did not bring up any other sources. Kees08 (Talk) 07:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- bio spam on a non notable individual; significant RS coverage not found. 100% promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 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 keep. per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Gill[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a PROMO article from the early days of WP. The tone is PROMO, pic is paid-for upload, article written by anon SPA, etc. She has authored lots of books/videos in the "self-help" and "business-help" sectors, but holdings are low hundreds or less, which I don't think is especially high for these pop sectors of publishing. Most of the sources seem to be web pages. Seems to have flown under the radar for a long time as a result of low page views and being an ORPHAN. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "executive coach" has led to several AfD nominations. No doubt there are other job descriptions one could search for that should be equally rich seams. Edwardx (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked on this last night and would appreciate Agricola44's input, too. I took out a lot of the puff and the poor citations and I added reviews from several reliable sources about her books. In addition, she was an important figure behind the success of Dr. Phil's show. Passes CREATIVE for reviews of her works and probably GNG for her high-profile roles in several orgs. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by Megalibrarygirl.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by Megalibrarygirl.Thsmi002 (talk) 16:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Level[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this show in reliable resources. The ones presented are from their own website, plus some random picture of a Burger King promotion that looks like it could have easily been scrapbooked together. I removed stuff related to 4Kids as it implied Alfred Kahn was the writer of the show. No French wikipedia equivalent. Article was created by a user who is currently blocked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, was this a hoax article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also pinging GeneralizationsAreBad as it's possible it might have been a show, but that it was heavily vandalized. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any independent coverage to show it even exists, let alone meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

44/876[edit]

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

Does not meet musical notability as a project that hasn't yet released anything.

See notability is not inherited from the musicians; the notability of the musicians only means that we go to AFD rather than to no credible claim of musical significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Article makes no justification for notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Raffoul[edit]

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

Unnotable journeyman singer-songwriter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 6 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...) 02:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 02:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NMUSIC — a concert tour has to be supported by reliable source coverage about the tour, not just asserted, to count as a notable tour that makes its artist wikipediable, and nothing else stated here even attempts to pass any other criterion at all — and this isn't reliably sourced. The only properly footnoted reference is a press release on a concert listings platform, not a reliable or notability-assisting media outlet, and the only other source here is a BBC News article, linkfarmed as an external link rather than being cited as a footnote, which isn't about Jody Raffoul, but merely mentions him in passing within an article about the general economic travails of Detroit. So that's not a source that actually demonstrates Raffoul's notability either. I also think either I might be having a stroke or somebody needs to go hunting, because I could literally swear that we've seen an article come to AFD before about a musician from Detroit whose main notability claim was getting to open for Bon Jovi. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the work has already been done by @Bearcat: above and I am in complete agreement. I will add that beyond Bon Jovi, I can find no evidence that this musician really opened for all of the big names listed in the article's first paragraph; if any of it is true he probably opened for singular local gigs when those artists passed through his town. He might be notable in his local area, but otherwise he has not gotten too far beyond the Bon Jovi contest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attention for the award (not an award that meets notability standards, btw) is not significant per WP:MUSIC. Nothing else can be verified with anything other than press releases, self downloads and minor coverage. Even authorship and maintenance of this page seems to be COI promotional from various SPA and IP addresses. Other awards are local and not wikipedia notable. The film "Grabtime" appears to be minor and exists only on self-download sites. The other film, "Annabel and Bear" does not mention his contribution in the IMDB page credits. And while social media followers are discounted by WP because of unreliability in their authenticity, it is revealing his numbers are comparatively small. Overall, the subject appears to be a successful local music scene journeyman, but nothing beyond run-of-the-mill attention and fails WP:MUSIC per a lack of significant independent 3rd party coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:40, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Perpick[edit]

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

Being a tour manager is sufficient only for Bryan Adamsopedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete background funtionaries for musicians are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Eichelberger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's biographical info to be found ([34][35][36][37][38]), but it's promotional, thin on detail, or trivial. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:40, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Build A Class Initiative[edit]

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

The Entrepreneur article to which the article is sourced is the only reference to the organization on Google News. An additional search through JSTOR and Google Books fails to find any mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:56, 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.

^ "YOUTUBE'S GOSSIP VLOGGERS HAVE CREATED THEIR OWN TABLOID INDUSTRY". The Verge, Vox Media, Inc. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
^ "The most influential YouTubers of 2015". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
^ "About the Sam and Nia YouTube Channel". YouTube. Retrieved January 30, 2018.

[1] "Nicholas Residence Hall". Rutgers University. Retrieved February 6, 2018.

[2] ttps://upclosed.com/people/elizabeth-ridgely-nicholas/

[3] ttp://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/4296138

[4] ttps://www.awakeningfighters.com/athletes/julia-berezikova/

[5] "YOUTUBE'S GOSSIP VLOGGERS HAVE CREATED THEIR OWN TABLOID INDUSTRY". The Verge, Vox Media, Inc. Retrieved September 1, 2017.

[6] "The most influential YouTubers of 2015". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 26, 2017.

[7] "About the Sam and Nia YouTube Channel". YouTube. Retrieved January 30, 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]