Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 January	11 January >

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wodzionka[edit]

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

The article seems like a blatant breach of WP:OR and doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It seems to have been created by User:LUCPOL, a now indefinitely blocked user, as a personal goal. I can't seem to find anything on it to verify it is notable, and there isn't adequate sources in English. There is one "source" on the Wiki article which only has 1 sentence on the topic. The Polish Wikipedia, which should have more in depth content on it, doesn't seem to have much either, and is also just as poorly sourced as the English version.

The previous decision to keep seems based off the notion discussed on the talk page and corresponding AfD post that the article was going to be improved in "at least a month", but it has been ~10 years, and I doubt anyone but User:LUCPOL had intentions of doing so, and he is now banned. I propose a near speedy delete as no new sources or content has been added to show it is notable or verifiable in the past 10 years. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article seems to have been created using original research. I feel it is a non-notable and non-verifiable topic.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 00:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's no surprise that the Polish Wikipedia article is poorly sourced by our standards - it is generally accepted there that things that are common knowledge don't need sourcing. Loads of sources are found by the Google Books search linked above, and, if you prefer a source in English, I've cited an academic paper that has a few paragraphs of cover in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a problem finding English language sources, but I did find two mentions: A Fodor's Poland travel guide and in a self-published book detailing a day's ration in Auschwitz I think the WP:SELFSOURCE exception applies in this instance. I also found a German-language source from 1847 which mentions the soup. I've added the two English-language sources. And while English sources are preferred, non-English reliable sources may be used as references per WP:NOENG, so I suggest adding one or more of the many Polish sources, as well. There is enough now to support WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry Financial Group[edit]

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

Does not satisfy corporate notability, which requires independent sources. Google search finds only primary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete the WLOS and Inc mentions are just mentions ... all other sources are social media or press releases ... as described by nom this doesn't pass basic depth requirements for a company Burley22 (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP; references are inadequate and the article is mostly puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - fails WP:CORP - no good RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Creighton[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable executive whose sole claim to notability and whose article was created solely as a result of accusations of sexual misconduct vis a vis Weinstein effect. Quis separabit? 23:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As pres of Vice he should be notable, however, it does seem the only sources available run afoul of NOTNEWSPAPER and BLP1E. With no prejudice for recreating the article later, I support delete. DocumentError (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can locate no feature articles nor newspaper or magazine profiles of the subject, making him a non-notable company exec aside from the occasional mention in articles prior to the sexual assault accusations and settlements. The sexual assault claims are already included in the Wikipedia Vice Media article here [1]. The Andrew Creighton article feels like a Wikipedia:SINGLEEVENT. Fails notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indepdently notable about Creighton. Might be notable in the context of a larger article on media executives forced out on accusations of sexual harrassment, but not enough for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough source material to support a Wikipedia biography article. Also, as AuthorAuthor points out, the source material already is covered in Wikipedia Vice Media article. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as oer AuthorAuthor There is simply no demonstrable notability found here. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator; consensus was to keep). MastCell ^Talk 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol University (California)[edit]

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

Non-notable, minor, for-profit college with accreditation issues. A WP:BEFORE check shows one (1) reliable source that mentions the school, failing GNG and ORG. Article was deprodded citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which has been deprecated as an XFD argument. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn. I thank @JaconaFrere for finding sources to meet GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 00:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete -- Nominator doesn't like the school. That's not a reason for deletion. It needs to be merged to redirected to tell the story of the small, for-profit university. Otherwise there will be a run on schools like Okan International University. Rhadow (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question The school's website doesn't even work as of this moment. Considering the scarce sources, is this actually a school (even a for-profit one) or a diploma mill? DocumentError (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the school is a "diploma mill" or not is probably a matter of perspective. James (^talk/_contribs) 14:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and answer to above question: The school clearly exists, or at least did exist. Their athletics website is here [2]. They played sports in the USCAA, it appears the 2016 season may have been their last. They played several of NCAA Division 1 teams in sports (here's a sports illustrated box score against Utah for an example [3]. There are plenty of more in-depth sports stories, [4],[5],[6],[7]. These doesn't show that the school was a threat to the PAC-10 athletically, nor the ivy league academically, merely that it existed and competed with well-known degree-granting schools, all of which have articles. Paragons of education, probably not. Athletic powerhouse, no. But this was a degree-granting institution that at one time had 16 athletic teams. There is a longstanding tradition of keeping degree granting institutions and even high schools unless there isn't even evidence they exist.Jacona (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases by competitors in guaranteed games, an article in a school paper, and a box score do not in sum meet GNG or ORG. James (^talk/_contribs) 14:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The university did win its case against the accrediting agency. Federal Judge Anthony Trenga believes the school exists [8]. Sprinter Stirley Jones went to Bristol [9], according to the Orange County Register. BU is probably closed now, but I like the website [10] that announces, "The Bears men's soccer team wins the first game in school history!" Rhadow (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They lost on appeal. James (^talk/_contribs) 14:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Hello James -- I don't particularly care whether this article stays or goes. It should be REDIRECTED somewhere valuable. I do observe that you have not provided a single Wikipedia reason for deletion. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Losing a court case is not a reason. Topeka Public Schools has an article. Being bankrupt is not a reason. Enron has an article. Being a crummy school is not a reason. Stanford University has an article. Having a broken website is not a reason. Equifax has an article. Being for-profit is not a reason. University of Phoenix has an article. If a high school is presumed notable, then I wonder why a university with a twenty-five year history is not. Rhadow (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per my original nomination, I believe the article subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Being a small, for-profit, unaccredited college is more likely to indicate that this institution does not have the significant coverage required to exist on Wikipedia. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable". I never mentioned the status of this school's webpage, and I shared the status of the school's lawsuit in order to ensure editors had a complete picture of the institution, not as an inherent argument. All that being said, I would not be opposed to redirecting to For-profit higher education in the United States or similar. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate to cite that quote to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES when what is quoted is not the text of Schooloutcomes but a quote from a disputed RfC and the quote is taken out of context in a way that changes the meaning. What WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES actually quotes from the Rfc nutshell is, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.

It sounds to me like a university makes it into the book. In this case, however, the school should be specifically excluded because it has a bad accountant, webmaster, lawyer, and soccer team. Rhadow (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the website is down, does not look good. I think at least wait for website to comeback and then it can be reconsidered. In addition, I saw several online reviews calling this school a scam! Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:22 12 January 2018 (UTC)

- Expertwikiguy, are you saying that an article needs an active website to be notable under wikipedia policy? So basically anything that ever existed, but is defunct should be struck from the encyclopedia? Could you point us to any Wikipedia policy that demonstrates that in any way please? Have you read WP:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions?Jacona (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- No I am not saying that. What I am saying while the website does not exists, we cannot verify if this school exists and also to check website for information that may be necessary to make a decision to keep them. So what I am saying is that until the website comes back we would not be able to make a better decision, so until that time, I am voting to delete. Just my opinion. It's my vote to Delete. Expertwikiguy (talk) 7:22 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What? -- "While the website does not exist, we cannot verify if this school exists." Are you kidding? Rhadow (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expertwikiguy, thanks for sharing your opinion.Jacona (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Expertwikiguy, the website can be viewed at the archive: [11] if you would like. Jacona (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has now been considerably expanded, with at least 15 sources in the article and more here. The school is shown to have existed for over 20 years, has competed against the highest level of competition athletically, has stumbled on hard times, and has been shuttered. And although it has nothing to do with policy, the archive of the school website can be accessed from the article for Expertwikiguy's viewing pleasure. The school had 280 students in 2014, and over the course of 20 years it would have totaled several thousand students.
Keep Yes, the Orange County Register thinks Bristol University no longer exists, but that is far different than it having never existed. They played Utah Valley University (which no one in the know ever calls just "Utah"), in a game that seems to have generated little if any coverage. Nothing spectacular, and if they were in a line of business other than education, we probably would delete. However we have special rules for educational institutions, and if a place fielded even supper-sub par teams in intercollegiate play, they will pass notability, even if the difference between them and a diploma mill is hard to gauge. Considering some of the classes offered at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, they seem to have also been a diploma mill, but no one has suggested we delete that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Inside Higher Education provided some coverage of the case. I think that makes the keep even stronger. I feel this relies too much on primary sources, but that is not a reason to delete, especially since it is clear there are secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has multiple reliable sources so the subject clearly passes WP:N. This will never be more than a minor, short article but that is no reason to delete it. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies WP:V#Notability, which requires one third-party source, and this information plus WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not circular reasoning. Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this university has several negative reviews online, what is the Wiki policy on adding Yelp as a reference and mentioning this? Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - qualifies for an article as it was a University, even if it eventually went bankrupt. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raven De La Croix[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep starring role in a film as well as other roles. Has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources for example here. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News articles from the 70's, book originally written in the 1980s (later republished in 2007), and a 2006 book talks about her work in film and as a stripper. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:NACTOR; the article is appropriately sourced and is neutral in tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Megalibrarygirl with articles from the 70's and a couple books, plus she meets WP:NACTOR. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Mazzula[edit]

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

Minor professor that fails NACADEMIC. Article created and maintained by now-blocked sockpuppet ring that coordinated to move the article out of draft space, against policy. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: on all counts cited by nominator. Quis separabit? 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To add to the above, books/print works are all single digit or low double digit (WorldCat), citations are low (GS h-index 4), article is an ORPHAN, and most of the sources are web/youtube/facebook. There is the USA Today source, but there are only a few quotes from Mazzula. Agricola44 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR & WP:PROFESSOR. Lacks WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WireCash[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable company. The article has 15 references, but not one of them is independent - they're all either from the company's website (1, 2, 3), from one of their business partners' websites (4, 6, 8, 11, 14), or a press release (5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15). Checking Google and Google News just brought up more press releases.
Also, the editor that created the article and has never edited anything else also has the company's name as part of their user name, so there's that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yet another startup using WP for promotion. Rhadow (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many references from own site or own Press Releases. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:26 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete Very promotional article sourced mostly to press releases. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Square-Point[edit]

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

No external references - some to blacklisted websites. Doesn't seem to exist any more. Doubtful notability. Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I too am unable to find evidence that this organisation attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No valid references, and nothing at all found in a search. I doubt if it is an actual hoax, but it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Dunlop[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. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article refs are weak and do not establish notability. A search turns up nothing of interest. Non-notable vanity page.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs work per our editing policy. There's more material out there including Who's Who in Art . Andrew D. (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in Art looks like a sketchy source. Their web site has a submission form. Thjey have one editor who compiles the entire book. Looks like a vanity press or vanity business, essentially. Just saying.198.58.161.137 (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work seems quite respectable and states clearly that "entries are entirely on merit as they have been since the first edition almost ninety years ago". Andrew D. (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and Saatchi Art, Les expositions de l'année au Canada / The Year's Exhibitions in Canada 1983, Galleryheinzel. Perhaps I am insufficiently metropolitan but where I am from, exhibiting at Sabhal Mor Ostaig would be considered of rather more worth than some of the trivia that populates our BLPs. Ben Mac Dui 19:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saatchi art is a wiki-style unreliable reference. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is a university, which is an easy/low-quality exhibition.104.163.150.32 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely attempting to learn something useful here. Can you say which you think are the more prestigious galleries for an artist working in the Highlands beyond Inverness Museum and Art Gallery and say Kilmorack in Beauly? Ben Mac Dui 10:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea on the galleries. I was merely pointing out that Sabhal Mor Ostaig is not a gallery but rather a school whose main business seems to be Gaelic instruction. (Cool language!) I see zero hits for any sort of gallery there when I search. It follows that a school of the Gaelic language is probably not a particularly selective or notable venue for an art exhibition. Notable venues have professional curatorial staff, dedicated exhibition space, publications and of course, a web site.198.58.161.137 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. I looked at the source for that show, and it is just the event announcement. Have a look at WP:RS. You can have tea with the Queen every Tuesday at 3PM, but unless someone write about it in reliable sources and in depth, it is not of any value to establish notability. So Sabhal Mor Ostaig doesn't mean anything here for notability.198.58.161.137 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't done a good search for potential sources, so I'm not giving my Keep/Delete yet, but the current sources are insufficient to establish notability. We have a number of commercial galleries, cottishartpaintings.co.uk, gullaneartgallery.co.uk, panterandhall.com, and a "a unique tool that enables you to create beautiful 3D showcases of your art to impress art lovers and collectors", kunstmatrix.com. The Scotsman would have been an excellent source, if the article had been about our subject. The piece in ross-shirejournal.co.uk is the only article that approaches something like critical attention, but it is clear from the article itself that the award, despite the fact that the Ross-Shire journal calls it a "a prestigious prize", the Art Centre Kelty, Bespoke Framing Award is in fact a very minor award. WP:ARTISTS requires "significant critical attention", and I don't see that (yet). Mduvekot (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of the qulity, reliable indepth sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reviews in The Scotsman; the 2015 review features her work. Notable also for election by her peers to run two of Scotland’s five Arts organisations; she then co-founded another. A long list of exhibitions. Major holding of works in Britain’s largest corporate arts collection - arguably, notableD Holly (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — D Holly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see two reviews in the Scotsman; there is only one. All it says is "Alison Dunlop also uses her medium beautifully in Wave and Wave-Study. In both, an inverted arc of transparent blue hovers above a blue horizon. This is essential watercolour. She could not create such a luminous image in any other medium." Mduvekot (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. There are at least two: https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/culture/art/art-reviews-rsw-william-crosbie-1-3670170 is another one, which is equally brief. There appears to be some material to base an article on, even if the artist has not received significant critical attention. Until we see something resembling that, Delete, with no prejudice to recreation once we see significant coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have spent quite some time looking for reliable sources and reviews. She has had paintings included in several exhibitions in Scotland, some of which accept works through open submission. These exhibitions have been written about in the Scotsman and there are instances where her work gets a brief mention in these reviews, along with multiple other artists. She has had a few roles within artistic organisations, but I couldn't find announcements or other material documenting this, even on sites published by these organisations. For example, a companies house listing has been relied upon to show she was registered as a director. There have been multiple references added to the article where she is not mentioned or where the source cannot be checked. The Ross-shire Journal article from 2015 is the only independent source that I could see that covers her and her work in any depth. I can't see that notability has been achieved if judged against WP:ARTIST. Worse than that, the activity around this article really smacks of undeclared paid-for editing. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Street Podcast[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could find no independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth information. It was CNN Travel named it one of the "5 best food podcasts" [12], but all information contained in that article is provided by the podcast's editor-in-cheif, so it can't be considered independent. If sources are found to establish its notability, great! I tried but failed to do so. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Article has no salvage value except the title. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. SPA spamming, creator indeffed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long's Jewelers[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The only sources that are independent of the company are directory listings, and a promotional interview, and a piece by the Boston Archdiocese that mentions the company, but does not provide any dispassionate examination of the company. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SPA, COI, trying to use WP for promotion. Immediately. Rhadow (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of SPA. Nanophosis (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dial911 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dodanthale Raja Maha Vihara[edit]

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

found no significant independent and reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, thus notability. Quis separabit? 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The temple is an archaeologically protected monument. Improved--L Manju (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page looks much improved after the nomination. Notability can not be an issue considering the age and archaeological status of the temple. SWR2.9 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep clearly now satisfies WP:N - is an archaeological significant site. Dan arndt (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important temple and the article meets your policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan arndt. Has notability due to archeological significance. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as listed place. --Doncram (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Haymond[edit]

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

Article published by a Coi author (who has blanked his talk page) after it had been turned down at AfC. The reason given was that the "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". I also believe he fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable person. Only significant coverage (if even that) is result of WP:SINGLEEVENT resulting from the Judge Judy incident. Other sources found are strictly local [13] or provide no in-depth information or examination of the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles submitted to the article creation project should not be end-runned created, they should be allowed to be created only if approved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renegade (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Marquez[edit]

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

Marquez's notability is attributed to his band but notability is not inherited. What perhaps is more concerning is the non-encyclopedic and at time promotional tone of this article. The sources aren't particularly reliable to gauge notability and, if there is anything relevant it, it can be discussed in the band article with neutral language. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marquez first came to international attention as a result of being an extraordinary guitar player, lead singer and songwriter. He wrote the song Dance With Me and is at least partially responsible for sales of more than 30 million records by Renegade. While notoriety is not inherited, it can flow from notoriety achieved as a result of one's own accomplishments. An example of inherited notoriety can flow from the offspring of a notable principal, whereas Marquez's notoriety results from his contribution to Renegade, being an original member of the first Latin metal band and the international sales of more than 30 million records. Marquez did not "inherit" his notoriety, he earned it as a member of a notable band. While the article could benefit from improvement, as is the case with most WP articles, it would be very arbitrary to start deleting articles because they may be lacking. A quick read of most articles concerning rock bands demonstrates weaknesses in their authorship. The answer is to solicit improvement, not to throw away the baby with the bath water. The rush to delete mentality contributes to edit wars on WP and should be avoided at all cost. We all have a duty to get along, help each other and promote a civil discourse. If I start nominating articles for deletion, it will undoubtedly anger those who spent their time and effort contributing to those articles. The next thing you know, those people are nominating my articles for deletion or vandalizing my edits. I urge everyone to take deletions very seriously and err on the side of restraint and improvement before arbitrarily deleting other's work. Finally, what's notable to you may not be notable to me, so an objective view is essential. Thank you for your consideration. Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this comment (by the article creator) is non-sensical but I'll address the "rush to delete mentality" I am apparently exhibiting. This puff piece has been around since 2009. Is nine years really a "rush" to deletion? AFD is a normal process on Wikipedia; don't blame it for any edit warring or pointy deletion nominations that allegedly occur in its wake.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Redirect to Renegade. I don't see any indication that this subject is independently notable outside of the band. Even the article's author admits above this subject's notability derives from the band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renegade (band) for now – the only article I can find about his solo career is an interview in his local paper [14]. Doesn't appear to be notable outside the band, his solo career appearing to consist of gigs at local California vineyards and the like. I can't see any individual notability for his bandmates Tony De La Rosa (rock guitarist) and Luis Cardenas either. I'm willing to believe that Renegade themselves were notable, but at the moment their article is entirely sourced to the band's website, the record company's website and social media, and is full of peacock language and demonstrably false statements (the band never had a single hit in the UK, for example). The claim of 30 million sales made above by the article creator seems to rest on an amateur video on YouTube featuring that well known musical authority, David Hasselhoff.

Puzzling comment by the article author, who appears to agree with the nominator that Marquez is not individually notable, that notability is an "objective view" and not bound by WP:N, and that Wikipedia editors are spiteful enough to engage in tit-for-tat AfD nominations if their article gets nominated. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:IAR per WP:SNOW and possibly a dusting of WP:SKCRIT#3 (for clarity, I arrived here from this discussion, and it seems fair to save the nom's blushes on at least one front) . (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chad–Sudan relations[edit]

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

No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TPH, why haven't you been banned from AfD yet? As you'd know if you read it, this isn't "a random slapdash collection with no focus", this is an article on two countries which have been fighting a lengthy and extremely high-profile war for years, and the relationship between the two is unquestionably a notable topic by Wikipedia standards. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. Could be better sourced and developed, but relations between neighboring countries are typically significant, and this pair is not an exception.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're bordering countries, of course they have significant relations (or hostilities). WP:SOFIXIT. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, sourced topic of encyclopedic value. Passes GNG via CNN and BBC articles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neighbouring countries Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell ^Talk 01:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Olivette[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable performer. Quis separabit? 19:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the New York Times pbituary in the article is substantial coverage and includes reference to other coverage she received during her career. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Nina has appeared in a Broadway play and she has made a few films as the article claims some of which have been seen as being significant enough for Wikipedia but notability is not inherited. I also question how significant her involvement was with the Broadyway play and the films for she is not widley mentioned within (if at all) these articles. Finally, the article seems to have been written with great haste and lacks clarity, development and proper citation. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forget to mention in AFD nomination, possible REDIRECT to Harry Stockwell (her spouse). Sorry. Quis separabit? 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR as roles are minor and for lack of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to the spouse would not make sense since the Stockwell article is quite short and there's no meaningful discussion of his personal life there. In this case, a redirect would be simply confusing to the readers.

The NYT obit is quite short and lacks a byline. It includes "SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES" which sounds to me that it was likely placed there by someone close to the family. That's not an obit that would imply that the subject was notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The first keep arguments are mite perfunctory (when discussing the notability of a term, sources discussing the concept are ideal) but later sources are mostly uncontested. If there is still desire for a merger to the comic, a dedicated merger discussion is warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sea lioning[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term" Every source currently in the article is about the term, exactly as required. This passes WP:NEO. --Jayron 32 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suitable level of independent sourcing is provided. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced, passes WP:NEO as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes NEO as explained by Jayron32. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge to Wondermark - Apparently I'm not seeing what other people are seeing. Where is the in-depth treatment of this concept beyond just referencing that comic (which is coverage of a particular comic strip such that it should be included in an article about the comic). The sources cited are mostly personal blogs/SPS and/or brief mentions. I'm searching myself, and it's a challenging search mainly because people use the term without describing it beyond a definition (if that) based on the comic. To pass WP:NEO I would want to see more reliable sources [at least in significant part] about the term, going into more detail than just reiterating what the comic itself said. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes WP:NEO. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I see many "clearly"s. Since I don't see additional sources linked here, and the sources in the article certainly do not show that it clearly passes, what is this based on? Could you link to some of the most convincing sources? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another I don't think has come up before - http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a13403/online-harassment-terms-fight-back/ And https://io9.gizmodo.com/10-comics-that-shut-down-terrible-internet-arguments-1677109868 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are a little better than what's there, but they're still each a couple sentences defining the term. Seems right for Wiktionary, but when no reliable source has more than a couple sentences about it -- and most of them have the same couple sentences or just put it in the context of the comic -- why wouldn't WP:NOPAGE come into play? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOTDICT, articles on words need to be encylopaedic - having more than a definition too. That and WP:NOPAGE, doesn't seem like this can be expanded much Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wondermark. Yes, it passes WP:NEO. However the article must have encylopaedic information - That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. - WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Currently it doesn't meet that, having only the definition and etymology. I was looking for the possibility of expansion, and the extra information I can find is: that it was derived in relation to gamergate and that it has been "embraced" by the subreddit KotakuinAction sourced to this unpublished "computer science" paper - [15] (not a super RS for this I think). IMHO the possibility of expansion is a little grim based on the sources I've found so far; so it should be merged. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And restore Jimbo's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the statement next to Jimbo's comment that was in the previous version - The term has been criticized, in part due to the comic featuring the apparent defence of bigotry and the comparison of invading someone's home to online posting. - would fit lot more if it were merged into the article on the comic; and it it is unsourced. Jimbo's comment is also about the comic really rather than the term. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I was confused who was supposed to be the bad guy in the comic per what I quoted[reply]

Merge to Wondermark, leaving a redirect. I think the references demonstrate that it's a notable concept by now (and boy is it a handy shorthand :), but it doesn't seem to be one that can sustain something of article size. - And definitely lose the Jimbo tweet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade to Keep as a separate article based on sources shown below and added to article in the meantime. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful concept, notable in internet culture.--Calthinus (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh Delete with prejudice unless this is adopted by multiple dictionaries. The sources certainly do not reflect anything but memes a few years out of date. 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
Redirect and merge – this is currently a dictionary definition, and should be listed on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Of course, our article on Wondermark can say a line or two about how it coined this work... and then most of this article would be redundant. (Edit: In fact, I did just that. You can't tell me this edit constitutes undue weight) No reason to keep this. ~Mable (chat) 10:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NEO. Miniapolis 00:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to sea lioning subsection of Wondermark. I agree that the concept is significant (not to mention incredibly useful) but can't find anything much in sources to add to the definition, so this works better as a subsection than a stand-alone article. Mortee (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note, new and improved sources provided to replace those in question.[16] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as others have said, passes WP:NEO.--Jorm (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't believe the argument that this topic passes WP:NEO resolves the main issue of this article: that it is overly short and can easily be described in full in the Wondermark article, as well as Wiktionary. I would like to know what @Jayron32, XOR'easter, EvergreenFir, Guy Macon, Miniapolis, and Jorm: think of this, as they voted "keep" purely on the fact that this term meets NEO. ~Mable (chat) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When responding to an AfD, I typically only address the reason for deletion that the person posting for the AfD gives. As per your new reason for deletion, in my opinion the concept of sealioning has become part of our popular culture, and should have a standalone article outside of the Wondermark page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should've been clearer; the article meets the WP:GNG. Please don't badger editors who (in good faith) disagree with you, and an AfD discussion is not a !vote count. Miniapolis 19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, that was not my intent. I just hoped to get some more detailed discussion than simply "does not meet NEO." "Actually it does meet NEO." But thank you both very much for responding to my request; I could not wish for more ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 21:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stand-alone article; passes WP:NEO. See for example: "How to Combat Fake News Online? Bring Reddit (and Other Online Forums) Into the Classroom". Results from Google books: [17]. Appears to be a notable internet trolling tactic. Snippet:

... discussed in depth in later chapter...", in Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online

When a neologism makes it into scholarly books, I feel it's not too soon to to have a Wiki article on the term. A merge to Wondermark would not be appropriate at this stage, since the term exists separate from the comic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per K.e.coffman who has provided sources demonstrating that the topic is substantive (not WP:NEO) and notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the improvements made by User:K.e.coffman, as noted by User:C. W. Gilmore. Chetsford (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Several references, so it's clearly a notable and definable concept but just one of many small strategies for Internet trolling. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All sources check out and it is common phenomenon in internet discussions --Blackbird256 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy, moved to draft. Now at Draft:Pension reform in Pennsylvania. ansh 666 02:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pension reform in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

looks like original research Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can move it to draft space. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page I am having my class work on on for Wiki.edu this semester -- it will not be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sen Penrose (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong: I was wondering - is it possible to have this sent to the draftspace so his students can work on the page, akin to how you moved Draft:Property taxes in Pennsylvania? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that this will give them time to expand and write things so it will meet guidelines. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Topic is most probably notable. Current article not ready for mainspace.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The topic certainly can be expanded. There's plenty of sources on the topic. I would not object to turning it into as draft for now as others have suggested.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per the discourse above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/move to drafts space, per above. = paul2520 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slazure[edit]

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

A software package that does not pass notability requirements. Tagged as such for almost 2 years with no improvement. Mattg82 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find coverage in independent reliable sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources findable showing any in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:NSOFT.

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-grunge lit[edit]

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

Zero sources cited use this term other than a self-published source, the PhD thesis. This is a non-notable neologism. I WP:PRODed this, after the associated category was deleted (twice), but the prod was removed on the basis that "WP:SCHOLARSHIP says a completed PhD dissertation that is publicly available can be used as a source". Whether the source can be used is not the issue. It, and everything else used in the article (which are about grunge lit not post-grunge lit, or about specific works that the thesis author calls post-grunge but which these sources don't), do not collectively constitute multiple instances of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. This fails the general notability guideline. What I'm seeing on the Web is blogs not quality sources, and some may well have gotten the term from our own article. Others appear to be using the phrase in a French context, which has nothing to do with the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A genre invented by one person in one academic paper. No significant coverage of it in independent sources. A paragraph on it is already included in the the Grunge lit article (whether it is important enough for inclusion or not is another question), and there is nothing further that could realistically be merged across. Kb.au (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's seems pretty reasonable to mention it at Grunge lit (though that should maybe be moved to Grunge literature per MOS:ABBR, unless RS overwhelmingly use only the abbreviated form). The author of the nominated-for-deletion spinoff article is correct that a PhD thesis can be used as a source for something non-controversial (and there's nothing controversial about the fact that the author of that paper is the one who came up with the post-grunge lit term in this context – it's central to this AfD); meanwhile it has been picked up by at least a handful of other writers, albeit almost entirely in the blogosphere. There's no prohibition on mentioning relevant neologisms with sources in article text; Wikipedia just doesn't want entire articles about non-notable ones, per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not for things someone made up one day. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a couple of paragraphs on it at Australian literature#1998–2010s: Post-grunge lit. A merge somewhere seems sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same editor added that material. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 20:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this term is used in any reliable sources other than the thesis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not build topic articles on one person's PHD dissertation that coined a new term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Behgjet Pacolli. ansh 666 02:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pacolli[edit]

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

No notable content on page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tátótát (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 8 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: just found this never-transcluded 2014 AfD nom, but seeing the one-liner BLP it might actually merit further discussion, so I've completed the filing and am relisting to make it current
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former First Lady of Kosovo per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Additional references to verify the claim of first lady are here, here, here. --Enos733 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Pacolli is the Former First Lady of Kosovo. Article should be expanded. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on WP:POLOUTCOMES - This WP:SUPPLEMENTAL information page (not policy or even guideline) says spouses of heads of states are "usually regarded as notable", not that they automatically are. Notability still has to be demonstrated, and a one-liner about a spouse of a guy who was head of state for a few weeks does not, IMHO, appear to establish any notability. WP:GNG is universal, and there is no SIGCOV about this lady in the article. List of spouses of heads of state will always consist of redlinks and redirects, especially for past, short-term spouses-of-heads-of-state.... I'd lean Weak Keep once the sources listed about by Enos733 are in the article. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Salvidrim: Sources added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:OUTCOMES is not a guideline and therefore not a good argument to make. Please discuss the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, WP:POLOUTCOMES provides a shorthand for a much longer discussion (see talk page) about the notability of a First spouse, because WP:NPOL does not specifically describe this position as being afforded the presumption of notability. That said, in the case of a first spouse, the community has accepted the presumption of notability to the holder of the position of First Spouse (time and again), and that presumption is found through the discussion in previous XfDs and currently expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES. There is also WP:NOTINHERITED: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar. Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." Note: this too is supplemental information. To summarize, the keep argument is spelled out in two different places, both in POLOUTCOMES and NOTINHERITED, both designed as guides for editors to consider when nominating an article for deletion. So, it is easier to just refer (in this circumstance) to WP:POLOUTCOMES and establish whether there information suggesting the subject was/is a first spouse is verifiable. In this case, there is. --Enos733 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For additional points about my argument, please see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Savita_Kovind. "While recognizing that consensus can change, one of the basic principles of this encyclopedia is that once a position is presumed notable, the position is notable across nations." --Enos733 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Behgjet Pacolli. This article contains no content that isn't already present there, and no one here has suggested any content that could be placed here. If we have nothing new to write about, she should not have a stand-alone article. ~Mable (chat) 21:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did just notice that our article on Behgjet does not currently mention Maria, so I suppose this would be more like a merging action. ~Mable (chat) 18:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His infobox says Masha Pacolli but it's a piped link to Maria Pacolli. I'm unclear whether we're getting a former and current wife confused or whether the two are alternative transliterations of the cyrillic "Мария"; also Behgjet's article doesn't have a "personal life" section. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Мария" is exactly "Maria". It's not clear why some sources call her "Masha" and others "Maria" (perhaps the first is a diminutive or pet name) but she is his second wife, and the first one was not named Masha. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Behgjet Pacolli. I too don't see having a separate stub article like this. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First lady of a modern, sovereign nation. Article should be expanded using Albanian-language sources (which unfortunately I don't speak). Scanlan (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, my first thought was to tag with {{expand Albanian}} but the sqiki article sq:Maria Pacolli is somehow even shorter than the enwiki one, and unsourced to boot. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect We lack any evidence that the First Lady of Kosovo has any duties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fairly even split between keeping and deleting/moving to draft, especially considering new sources kept coming in as the AfD progressed. ansh 666 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nehlen[edit]

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

This is a bit of a procedural AfD. This was redirected per a discussion last year, and deleted through a discussion not even a month ago. I suppose it's possible that in all of ten days there was a sufficient deluge of coverage so as to change the outcome of the last AfD, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. GMG ^talk 15:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was last deleted about a week ago. It should be a candidate for speedy deletion. The figure doesn't appear notable, aside from being a failed political candidate who runs against Paul Ryan (probably as a publicity stunt).RobertGraves (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy was requested 15 minutes after creation, and rejected 13 minutes later, saying, "there are hundreds of new news articles about nehlen since the AfD, many foreign. I believe he may now meet notability guidelines as a 'notable white supremacist', as most of the new news articles are focusing on that". Unscintillating (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, G4 has been requested twice, and twice declined. GMG ^talk 17:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the edit summary, "WP:G4 'excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version', and the content here is completely different". Unscintillating (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There actually has been a considerable amount of new press coverage of Nehlen in the past two weeks, based on outrageous things he has said or Tweeted. I am undecided about his notability at this time, and will take a "wait and see" attitude for a few days. I encourage anyone interested in this debate to take a careful look at the news coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nehlen has received President Trump's tweeted support and Nehlen has received close to 16% of the Republican vote in Wisconsin. His candidacy is a good example of how far support for the policies he espouses extends in the Republican party. He seems a borderline case in that he was supported by Breitbart and President Trump but has recently lost that support. In future he may be usefully cited as an example of how far the GOP party was prepared to go to support right wing policies before being forced to pull back by the electorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kujiranoai (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Postpone~~. Keep. Honestly, I didn't want to comment on this request, but I concur with Cullen on this. We should really look to see what occurs in a year or so and revisit this topic then. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to keep per LtNOWIS.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete short of winning the congression election, Nehlen has no notability. 15% of the primary vote means he was trounced, just plain trounced. That he is even running again after such a throughout trouncing shows that at least within the Republican Party, Representative Ryan is well established in this district. Something may happen in the next few months to change that, but as of right now Nehlen is absolutely not in any way, shape, means or form notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Postpone or~~ Keep The recent spike in news interest and the subject's actions indicate this may be a worthwhile topic to keep track of. New article is substantially different from the prior version due to recent events and coverage, and it does no harm to keep it pending further developments. At a minimum this may be an important point in the history of U.S. political discourse to record. Shorn again (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to keep per LtNOWIS. - Shorn again (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots pf very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage by major national media so meets GNG (WP:POLITICIAN is irrelevant). Royal broil 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Postpone" is not a valid choice. Either he's notable now, in late 2017, or he isn't. If he becomes notable in a few months, then turning the article from a redirect back into a normal article is a matter of a few mouse clicks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I will say though that editors will have to follow Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. So it's not going to be a walk in the park. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no clear consensus, and several people have voted "wait and see", so I'm re-listing to give another week to see.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace - The article should not be kept, and it sounds like multiple editors are hesitant to delete only because the subject person may become notable later. If people don't want to lose the work that's been done, the answer is simple: Move the article to draftspace. That way there will be less effort, if the subject person ever becomes notable, to restore the content already prepared. Editors who said "Postpone" should be !voting to WP:DRAFTIFY, not keep. (To be clear, if not draftified, in the alternative I would !vote strong delete per WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.) Shelbystripes (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not keep stuff on a "wait and see" basis just because the topic might become more notable in a year than he is today — we judge an article's notability and keepability entirely on the matter of whether he already clears an inclusion standard today — and non-winning candidates are not more notable than the norm just because of who's endorsed them, either. WP:SALT also needed, because this coming back so quickly after the second discussion plainly shows that people are planning to simply ignore AFD consensus about him. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Nehlen might still meet WP:GNG though. Recent articles include: [18] [19] [20] [21]

It's only clear that he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage never, ever fails to exist for any candidate in any election anywhere — so every candidate for any office whatsoever would always pass GNG if "some media coverage exists" were all it took. What it takes to make a non-winning candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on that basis is not "does media coverage exist?" — because, again, there's no candidate in any election anywhere for whom it doesn't — but "does a reason why the world will still need this article to exist ten years from now exist?" Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace per Shelbystripes. Should/Could this get relisted to get consensus on Draftify or Delete? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS subject isn't notable outside of some recent news stories. Truthsort (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has been deleted already and whatever small Twitter coverage on him there was has died down. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between keep and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A check on Google news shows that the top three links are 3 hours old, 7 hours old, and 7 hours old. I also checked on Google books, and see that the topic has coverage there.
The last (second) "AfD" was a classic case of a non-deletion content discussion that spiraled out of control into a delete. Considering that the nominator was not a delete !vote and one commentor advocated keeping, seven editors !voted delete, while seven advocated to not delete. Three of the deletes there cited BLP1E, which is totally inapplicable as BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals, and even when applicable is a merge argument. The third !vote asserts, "Multiple non-notable acts do not add to notability."...This is not helpful, since coverage of "acts" accumulates. The fifth delete !vote claims that the "keep" !votes haven't done enough to satisfy him/her, even though this was a non-deletion discussion.
The WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete#4 states in bold, When in doubt, don't delete. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably leading to a merge User:Ethanbas at the 2nd AfD provides nationally recognized sources such as newsmax and the Washington Times, which shows GNG. The topic has been attracting attention for more than one event, so BIO1E doesn't apply. GNG is only a subset of WP:N, and WP:N does not require editors to maintain this article as standalone. The forum here isn't suitable to solve the problem of where to merge. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- as a candidate, does not meet WP:NPOL. The subject is best known as an alt-right troll, but, as of yet, he does not meet WP:NFRINGE just yet. Delete is the best option here. Recent sourcing relate to his 15 min of fame due to a Twitter spate, but it's WP:TOOSOON -- the subject is not encyclopedically relevant just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify -- change from "delete" per discussion below. Not notable just yet. "Delete" would be my second choice. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- He clearly meets the criteria of a "local nominee or politician who has recieved significant coverage". In the last week he has had detailed profiles by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Forward, Buzzfeed, The Week, and National Review. His notablity will only further increase from here. If he was a random challenger I would agree. However, recent events have clearly shown that he is a notable figure.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace until the next backdraft. Didn't know about this option until this AfD. Otherwise, it would be a weak keep. He probably has enough notoriety… I mean notability for that. Not sure where it could be merged into. Sorry for the lack of argument. StrayBolt (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has enough reliable third-party coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion, but I would not be opposed to it being moved to a draft space if it comes to that. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Playtech. ansh 666 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playtech BGT Sports[edit]

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

nothing out there that meets corpdepth, all references are from unreliable sources or regurgitated press releases- additionally some references are about the parent company Playtech and I see nothing that couldn't be put in that article instead. Notability is not transferred. Additionally almost certainly created by UPE editor in violation of our TOS. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable of the parent company. The redirect would be pointless since anyone typing in Playtech would get to the parent company; there's no need to preserve article history since is spam built on WP:SPIP sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nothing passes NCORP imo. Reads like a listing more than an informative article. The only credibility is that the parent company has sufficient notability to have coverage across wide topics. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Agree with K.e.coffman above. Any relevant info can be merged into the parent company article. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found very little in the way of sources to satisfy GNG. It's a significant division of the parent company though, so it should probably have about a paragraph in Playtech#Operations. Toohool (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mangoo[edit]

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

Non notable DJ, Has only become known for one song (Eurodancer) and even then I wouldn't say notability's there, nothing on Google News, Fails MUSIC & GNG –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by vote?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. article needs more references and a clean-up but that is not a reason for deletion. Clearly chart success. Articles on other Wikipedias also a clear notion of notability. Chart success.BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Released 4 songs .... 1 got to #55 on Swedishcharts.com .... I would hardly call that "chart success"!, "article needs more references" - Absolutely agree on that point however there is no sources, Them having articles on other projects is utterly irrelevant - Many socks who are blocked here go to other projects and create articles on themselves all of which are never deleted, Again 1 song at #55 on a non notable chart is hardly success, As a !keeper you need to prove how and why he's notable which so far you haven't done. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)(23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. I have tried to find sources about him, including site:.se searches, and I have added one and corrected the link to swedishcharts.com. There is a tremendous amount of hits on his name, but it is hard to find something of substance and reliability. As such, I currently fail to see that we are near a pass of the basic notability guideline for people, and I find that having had one single peak at no. 55 is not a pass under the additional criteria for musicians. If anybody else can source him, ping me and I'll reconsider my position, but we need to be conservative with BLPs. The argument is made that Articles on other Wikipedias also a clear notion of notability, but no, WP:OTHERLANGS: "the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable." It is rather more interesting that Swedish Wikipedia, that often is more lenient, deleted the article in 2016. Sam Sailor 10:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG - significant coverage not found. PhilKnight (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Telecom[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this passes our notability guideline.Has shades of UPE throughout it's history and even hijacking.Not finding any significant coverage across reliable sources. Winged Blades^Godric 12:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I stumbled upon this article by chance (saw an ad for this local ISP) and noticed that the title "Bravo Telecom" had been highjacked from being about a Saudi telecom (later histsplit into Bravo (Saudi Arabia)) by UPE-corp account User:BT.team and also by Meding46 (see the WP:COIN thread detailing the highjack.) I PRODed and tagged the then-unreferenced advert-like stub, to which Meding46 said "I know the company very well as they're my provider for Internet Telephone and TV since 10 years, so I'll reach to them and make them aware that their page is planned for deletion. I'm sure we can improve this page by citing sources let me manage that.", and then came along Sumon07 (who are suspected of engaging in UPE across several articles, along with their sock User:Rasel78, and who also probably logged out to use 203.78.145.244 to re-remove the tags here) to add sources to this article. Of the seven added sources, two (#1 and #5) are to Bravo's website and one (#6) is a self-published pless release, two (#2 and #4) are directory listings of businesses or internet plans, one (#3) is to a government decision unrelated to Bravo, one (#7) is a generic tech article about DSL Internet that doesn't even come within a mile of mentioning Bravo; there is not a single reliable, independent source demonstrating any significant coverage, and thus there is no argument that this topic would pass notability per WP:GNG or even WP:NCORP. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a telecom company of 30 employees is too insignificant. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mege -- Almost all listed companies in the website listing Bravo Telecom (#4) among others have a Wikipedia Page : see reference page Plans by carrier, I could find at least the four preceding Bravo Telecom such as Bell Cogeco Distributel and EBOX. Because I leave in Canada, I know that both latest ones are adopting same business model than BT and are comparable in terms of employees and turn over. Additionally, when Canadian users search for Bravo Telecom they are faced to the page about Bravo (Saudi Arabia) which does no more exist and it doesn't make sense to keep them in the index. I would recommend merging both pages Bravo Telecom and Bravo (Saudi Arabia) into the same page about the Canadian internet provider which is more useful for users in Canada and in the world. Meding46 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Or more useful to your pocket.Anyways, WP:OSE and WP:USEFUL aren't valid arguments.And, I live far away from Canada, so why do I choose to believe you or any other non-reliable source?If, you believe that Bravo (Saudi Arabia) which does no more exist and it doesn't make sense to keep them in the index, feel free to seek an AFD.Winged Blades^Godric 16:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Winged Blades I'm a contributor same you are ! Meding46 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I understand there are people specialized in deletion and this may be a new business. I live in CANADA (see my IP) and I believe the brand Bravo Telecom deserves its own Wikipedia page, I do not understand why is there a debate about this !74.58.71.52 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "I think it deserves a page" unfortunately is totally meaningless. The point of this discussion is not to evaluate what you think, but evaluate whether this article subject meets English Wikipedia's inclusion policy. Can you explain how the article subject meets English Wikipedia inclusion policies (WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH)? Thanks! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iranian football league system#Current system. Could be useful to have a full merge discussion regarding all the leagues, too. ansh 666 03:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Province League[edit]

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

Without resources. Previously, its page was deleted in Persian Wikipedia. No popularity. JomaIran ^Talk 12:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Deleted in Farsi Wikipedia (https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7&page=%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85+%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C+%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86) and Adding many redirects to confuse users. JomaIran ^Talk 12:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a football competition that currently is being played in the capital and biggest city of Iran and is part of Iranian football pyramid and as well as AFC's Asia Vision. Plus this is the oldest football competition in Iran dating back to 1920 and within a few years it'll be a century old and I can not find one single reasonable logistic reason for its deletion or even requesting it. vathlu (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Ardabil Provincial League, Bushehr Province League, East Azarbaijan Province League, Gilan Province League, Golestan Province League and Khuzestan Province League into one article. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Iranian_football_league_system#Current_system. Would also encourage editors to be bold and do the same to the other leagues noted where insufficientsources exist to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per above comments SeraphWiki (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This cup was Iran's top flight for more than half a century and has a very important part in history of Iranian football and this article should not be compared to other Iranian provincial leagues and cups, I can not stress enough of historic importance of this League. for sure should be kept and developed further, is an essential article in Persian Wikipedia football project (I'm afraid the link is all in Persian but the link lists articles that must be created). Cheers everyone and happy holidays. vathlu (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PrideGP Grand Prix 2003[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found nothing to indicate notability. There maybe some Japanese sources but after a Japan specific search I did not find anything the stood out as being a reliable source. Mattg82 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Review on GameFAQs, GameSpot page with video Previews, GameSpot Impressions article, Also, unsure if it is simply a different release version of Pride FC: Fighting Championships Lee Vilenski(talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As the year was in 2003, online info search does show some info but not many. Here found [22], https://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/919012-pridegp-grand-prix-2003/reviews/64641] and [23]. No major newspaper source found on the game release (maybe in JP version), but the above sources (including sources fromuser:Lee Vilenski) suffice its nobility. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other's are fine, but the GameFAQs one isn't a critic review. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Wolf[edit]

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

I don't know which ranks in NFL staff are considered high enough for notability, but this subject doesn't seem to rank very highly, and the deepest sourcing on him is of this level--a couple of sentences about him possibly getting a job, and a couple of lines here, on an NFL blog, as one of 13 possibilities for a position. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have proper credible references and also lot's of other news on him in Google News that are not referenced. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:24 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep as noted above, passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tokyo Dragons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Martini[edit]

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

I do not believe this person passes the GNG or even NBAND. It is argued that he passes the latter because he was "member of 2 notable bands", but the requirement in NBAND is that he be "a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". The best sources I can find ([39] and [40]) give him a half sentence each, so I don't see how he is reasonably prominent--he seems not to be. So, I think this should be deleted, unless someone digs up some significant discussion of this drummer. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tokyo Dragons. Being the drummer in a hard rock band for their entire history is about as prominent a member as anyone should reasonably expect, and a bit more detail there on what he did after that band wouldn't hurt. After that he seems top have basically been a short-term member/session musician for various bands. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair--if it's a good target for this guy, I fully support it. Thanks Michig. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tokyo Dragons. I agree with Michig, Martini had three singles in the UK Singles Chart with this band, so the group is notable and is the obvious redirect target - the Quireboys were a bigger band during their heyday, but by the time Martini joined it had been well over a decade since their last success. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Muhammad Akram. Content can be merged from history. ansh 666 03:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major Akram Shaheed Memorial[edit]

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

Nothing significant other than namechecks. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The monument is adequately covered in the article about the man.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Certainly this is a notable park in Jhelum and seems to me to be of regional significance. Unfortunately there is not much coverage of the park in reliable sources. There is enough to know it exists, satisfying WP:V for instance. I don't have any WP:NOR or WP:NPOV concerns with the brief article as it is currently written. I agree that there isn't enough coverage for the subject to be clearly notable, but given the size and prominent location of the park, I believe that is due to the lack of Urdu language sources. Note that the article is already currently also mentioned at the page for Jhelum. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So right way is to redirect when we don't have sources to support stand-alone article. Störm (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem differing in opinion with you on this, but to me the point is that I believe the subject of the article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. In particular, I believe that multiple in-depth sources exist, I simply don't have access to them. Notability (aka WP:42) gives us the presumption of suitability for inclusion if multiple sources were presented, which we don't have in this case. But I believe there is suitability without presumption. If one doesn't believe the subject is suitable because: they disagree that the sources exist, they have a different opinion of suitability that does not apply to relatively large city parks in mid-sized cities in Pakistan, they believe in strict necessity of multiple in-depth sources, or for whatever other reason, they might go ahead and !vote delete. I think deletion would be a mediocre outcome. An alternative you suggest is WP:REDIRECT, in particular from WP:RPURPOSE: redirect is appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." If you believe that a park or a statue is a subtopic of an individual or of a city, then a redirect is appropriate. I think redirection would be an ok outcome. I think keeping would be a fair outcome, with WP:HEY much preferred, but I've made an effort to find sources online under the English title, the Urdu (میجر محمد اکرم میموریل) or the Punjabi (میجر محمد اکرم دی یادگار) and have found none except a few English sources very similar to what I linked to above, and none in-depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough independent and reliable coverage to be found. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Jhelum and Muhammad Akram would be a generous solution. We know almost nothing about the park and monument (we don't even know what Shandar Chowk is, the thing the park is near) and any mention online appears to be copied word-for-word from Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muhammad_Akram#Death. If sources suddenly materialise to meet WP:SIGCOV, then the article could be restore. Not independently notable and not suitable for inclusion in the current form. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the sock !vote and noting that CSD G5 applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Hate Me & I Hate You[edit]

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

Fails NSONG. Sources listed are unreliable. Features mostly unencyclopedic unsourced commentary. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources for this song can be found. --Mayergrade367 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G5 creation by Mayergrade367, a sock of Tamara787 in violation of their block. Sockpuppet investigation here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadirim[edit]

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

All sources listed are non-notable, save for potentially one. Can't see much through a Google search, which is troubling for a browser game released in 2011. Coin945 (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All I could find was Review on MMORPG.com Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually all of this article is in-universe material, except for an introduction that is largely a timeline of development. The article's primary author started and finished their involvement with the article while the game was in beta testing, and pretty much left Wikipedia after its official release. And the result of their work is what we have here today -- an article that serves little purpose other than to promote a now-closed game. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 03:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta: War of Empires[edit]

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

Has various reviews. None in reliable sources though... Coin945 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web Browser games are rarely notable. Cannot find notible references Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has reputable coverage - I've added some of which can be found through a Google News search. Gameduke (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 03:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost (1981 video game)[edit]

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

Can't find nuthin' Coin945 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some mentions here and there although I'm not sure it would save the article. e.g. "An NBC News segment airing March 8, 1982, profiled Tom McWilliams, a suburban teenager from California who earned $60,000 from the proceeds of his 1981 video game Outpost."^[1]^: 173 and a cover here (which also revealed it was coded in Assembly) but that's about it. Juxlos (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Newman, Michael Z. (2017). Atari Age: The Emergence of Video Games in America. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262338196. Retrieved 27 December 2017.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm usually against deleting video game articles, especially older ones, as it's sometimes hard to find out how much press coverage they had when they came out. [41], [42] are about for anyone wanting to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Apple II games, due to lack of coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Juxlos source and this one, outlining how the Cinematronics port of Outpost ended up being reworked as cutesy Boxing Bugs, to some's disay.^[1], or at the very least weak merge with Space Zap#Legacy about Spaze Zap clones. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Skelly, Tim (15 June 2012). "The Rise and Fall of Cinematronics". In Mark J. P. Wolf (ed.). Before the Crash: Early Video Game History. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814334508. Retrieved 16 January 2018. I was no longer working for Cinematronics in 1981, but I was there long enough to provide artwork for his last game at Cinematronics. In [Scott] Boden's own words, "The last thing I was working on was Outpost (1981), which had a cannon and a gun in the center with attackers on the periphery. I left and Jack Ritter took over. He renamed it Boxing Bugs (1981) and tried to make it cute." In my opinion and Boden's, Boxing Bugs was a travesty.

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon Morris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in 2011 (but not G4 as there are added publications post-2011). Subject has published quite a few books, all be it many via CreateSpace and the like, and some papers. However - these do not seem to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. BEFORE doesn't show he passes GNG. Article itself is quite promotional, and its creation was somewhat "fishy" (rejected at AfC a few times, a year later a different user comes along and mainspaces it) Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. True, the subject is a prolific author, but has not created the significant works needed for inclusion as laid down by the our points in WP:AUTHOR.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article that brings to mind Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K-PAX. No sourced content to merge. ansh 666 03:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-PAX IV: A New Visitor from the Constellation Lyra[edit]

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

Self-published book with no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you mean to tell me that there isn't any place you think this could be merged? I can think of at least two: the author and K-PAX itself. Both of these are miserable articles, and could stand to be expanded, but deletion is entirely the wrong solution for non-notable sequels. Per WP:PEREN AfD is not articles for discussion, it's articles for deletion. There is simply no policy-based justification for nominating a sequel to a notable book for deletion, especially when the other novels in the series are already referenced, as redlinks, in the obvious merge target. I'm sure there's a story here about how the adaptation of Brewer's work became far more successful than any of his subsequent efforts, because that's sure what it looks like... Regardless, WP:ATD-M remains policy, and if we want to start having better deletion discussions, we should really cease allowing AfD to be used to enforce a not-yet-even-attempted merge or redirection. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long experience indicates that doing that without a consensus that the stand-alone article is invalid, leads to friction, but things may have changed - if you want to try that then I will close this. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to K-PAX. Self-published work not having enough independent coverage on reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and there is no series article it can be merged to. K-PAX is an article about the book, not the series, and the author's article doesn't discuss it at all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What really stops us from putting content of this article into other. Subject is still not different, it is same. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article itself is unreferenced. There being no references, there is really nothing to merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice to creating a disambiguation page. ansh 666 03:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller on the threshold[edit]

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

A figure in esotericism. The article is full of apparent WP:OR (tagged since 2009) and lacks any substantial references, making most content unverifiable. A Google Books search yields only apparently unreliable esoteric literature, i.e., primary rather than secondary sources. For the same reasons, the topic's notability per WP:GNG is dubious. We'd need a reliable secondary source that, as a minimum, defines the topic in order to even consider keeping this as a stub with all the OR cut out. Sandstein 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Guardian of the Threshold which is the most common term. —Paleo Neonate – 23:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That other article also has problems, however... —Paleo Neonate – 23:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambiguation - there are three hatnote-linked pages, and a WP:DICTDEF, which is sufficient to keep a disambiguation page here. Most of the rest of the content should be removed as unsourced and non-encyclopedic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no evidence that this topic is notable. Possibly with more research? Looks like the content is based on books that I have no access to. Can you make a stronger case for notoriety?Sgerbic (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus needed on the best action to take on the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I do have one or two of the stories, and I have to say that as a literary concept it is not really that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambig, the article itself is obviously redundant with Guardian of the Threshold but the song/album/band should be linked from this term. The content should in principle be merged to the Guardian article but in reality all of it needs to be merged into a trash can. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or blank/redirect to Guardian of the Threshold per WP:POVFORK and WP:Duplicate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable. After deletion, possibly use the page to disambig: Dweller on the Threshold (song), Dweller on the Threshold (album), and Dweller at the Threshold. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Punk rock in California. ansh 666 03:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nardcore[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources that discuss the genre itself. Article had one reliable source that was discussing the death of a band member, not the genre itself. Waggie (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NOM started this AfD in a disingenuous fashion by first deleting the meat of the content. [43] They obviously did not do a WP:BEFORE because I was able to start adding sources before they had even created the AfD. Here in their rush to push this AfD, they reverted and thus removed my first two additions of sources. I don't know what other sources I will find to add in the future or how it will modify the content of the article, but I am already finding enough WP:GNG to justify the existence of this genre. That was the sole basis for the NOM. They have failed miserably to prove the absence of sources. I am finding the opposite. I suggest they withdraw the NOM at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Trackinfo, please remember to assume good faith. It is not disingenuous to clean up an article before nominating for AfD. It helps clarify what the AfD is actually about, helps determine whether an article is suitable for AfD, and is very often done before nominating articles for AfD. The content I removed was either unsourced, poorly sourced, or was almost entirely to do with bands and band members that are associated with the genre, not the genre itself. It was a large portion of the article content, but not the "meat" of the article. Regarding my "rush to push this AfD", I reverted your first two additions because you had removed the AfD tags, as you appeared to have accidentally removed them. I did perform WP:BEFORE and found only references to the same half-dozen bands, but no discussion that was remotely comprehensive of the genre itself in reliable sources. The references you've added haven't changed that assessment. Regarding the sources offered in the article at this point:
- discogs.com - Simply a track listing from a compilation album, and discogs.com is often user-submitted content (ie: not WP:RS).
- discogs.com - Simply a track listing from another compilation album, and also not a reliable source as noted above.
- interpunk.com - Simply a track listing from a compilation album, from a site that used to sell this compilation (not WP:RS).
- The "Rock & Roll Encyclopedia" doesn't appear to have editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking. Even if it did, an "encyclopedia" is a tertiary source. We need secondary sources to establish notability.
- OC Weekly Article - Discusses the genre briefly, but only in the context of Ill Repute. I consider it a "weak" source, but has some merit.
- Last.FM - Doesn't offer comprehensive coverage, is extremely short, and is user-submitted content. Ironically, it looks like that short blurb was actually copied from Wikipedia, in fact.

A useful RS noticeboard discussion about discogs.com can be found here, and a short discussion regarding last.fm can be found here.

Merely proving something exists isn't not enough to meet WP:GNG. If there isn't any comprehensive coverage available to summarize about the article subject, it isn't suitable for inclusion. Frankly, if the only thing to say about the genre how it relates to a half-dozen bands and the deaths of various band members in those bands, that should make it's notability suspect in and of itself (aside from the lack of comprehensive discussion in reliable sources). If the only thing to say about Black metal was the various tales and travails of bands that have created music in this genre, then it would not be notable, either. On a related note, please see the MOS guidelines regarding listing bands in genre articles. If I've made a mistake and this genre IS truly notable, I welcome you to please provide comprehensive coverage in reliable sources to prove me wrong, but I'm seeing anything so far that changes my mind at all, so forgive me if I do not withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your contributions. Waggie (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've looked over the new sources offered, they're all interviews of band members waxing nostalgic over their younger years, old concert promotions, more track listings, and discussion of things other than the genre itself (other genres, for instance). They all mention Nardcore, but do not discuss it comprehensively. Reading all this, I still do not know what makes Nardcore, Nardcore, other than that a half-dozen skate punk bands from Oxnard, California claim that it's their genre. Trackinfo, I appreciate the work you're putting into this, but I'm not sure actually you're helping readers understand what Nardcore actually is. Waggie (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undervalue. First, the article identifies over a dozen bands, not including renamed bands. If you are to discount any article because it contains an interview with one of the principals, then you will negate the vast majority of sources in any subject. The concept of nardcore is mentioned in the editorial voice of most of the source articles linked. Many of those publications are from L.A., Orange County and further regions, all of which recognize the unique style of Nardcore, not that I am enough of an expert in the subject to tell you. Some sources include JFA as associated with the style, even though they were a Phoenix band, so it is not just geography. The key point here is, this is discussed in more than passing terms in a lot of different sources, including known publications like the L.A. Times. Unsourced and GNG, the issues you challenged the article on have been solved. You have no case for the destruction of this content.Trackinfo (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Interviews of principals are primary sources and are not suitable for establishing notability. Yes, the existence and concept of Nardcore is mentioned in the editorial voice of those publications, but not discussed. After thoroughly reading every single source you've offered, I see no secondary source (or even primary source) that actually explains what really differentiates Nardcore, other than region. Also, which sources include JFA as associated directly with the Nardcore style? I can't seem to find any.

The editorial discussion in the sources is of the bands, or the members, or the skate punk/hardcore punk genres in general. Where is the secondary source that descriptively "recognize(s) the unique style" of Nardcore? The LA Times article you mention has precisely one and a half sentences that tangentially discusses Nardcore in (more or less) editorial voice: "...when all sorts of hard-core punk bands used to scare each other's parents. Groups such as Agression, Dr. Know, Ill Repute and Stalag 13 collectively became known as Nardcore." The rest of the article is about Oxnard's music scene in general and the little other discussion of Nardcore is WP:PRIMARY. In fact, the LA Times article is actually about a band from a completely different genre, and Nardcore is brought up only because the interviewee is a younger sibling of a Nardcore musician. That is quite explicitly a passing mention. Please remember, we're just politely discussing the merits of the sources, and the article's notability in a Wikipedia context. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm just not seeing it yet. If the discussion holds that it's not notable and the article is deleted, there's always the option to WP:REFUND if/when good sourcing can be found. Thanks again for your time. Waggie (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero interviews in the 2 paragraph City of Oxnard recreation page discussing Nardcore history. It directs to another two page article discussing the publication 60 Miles North as the locally produced journalism on the subject. That links to 15 back issues of the magazine available for sale. If a scene can generate that much journalism, that is certainly not a one off mention that you dismiss. Yes 60 Miles North bears no resemblance to a professionally produced publication, the Jacob Rhodes interview discusses the DIY nature of the scene the now professional artist grew up in. Those sections you classify as one off mentions occur in multiple issues of seven existing (or better said) surviving newspapers, two of them daily papers. We also have multiple sources archived from within the punk community, plus of course the sources documenting some compilation albums of the genre and current performances of the four surviving bands from over 30 years ago.

What you nominated was an article with a single dead link as a source. Without sources and without doing a WP:BEFORE search that would have confirmed the existence of sources (and should have averted the AfD in the first place), you deleted 9 and a half paragraphs of content before making the nomination. In the minutes of your processing the nomination, I did do the search, I saw the sources existed. I replaced the content and added two sources, which you rush reverted. Since then, the article has been built up to 27 sources backing up most of what was in the existing article. Yes some of what was there was self serving, poorly composed junk. Cleaning stuff like that is what a competent editor should be working on. Waggie, you seem to be twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to dismiss this much content in order to prove yourself right and get a win. And if you succeed, wikipedia will be the lesser for it.

Repeating my suggestion from earlier, you should withdraw your nomination. Then improve your AfD nominating technique to first include a search for sources so you can see if what you are attacking is a legitimate subject (that you should then improve) or something worthy of wasting everybody's time with an AfD nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated in good faith and I stand by my nomination. As I explained prior, I did perform WP:BEFORE and found many of the sources you have added to the article, however I do not find them useful in a Wikipedia context for describing Nardcore itself. Also as I explained prior, I simply reverted your removal of the AfD tags, which you had mistakenly removed. I'm not trying to get a "win", Wikipedia isn't about that. I'm here to build a quality encyclopedia. The quality of the sources is far more important than quantity. I agree that Nardcore is a legitimate subject, but as it stands, I don't see it meeting inclusion guidelines. I appreciate the work you've done in attempting to improve the article. Unfortunately, it's still not answering the questions I've put forth. For the sources again, the "City of Oxnard recreation page" you refer to is clearly not journalistic (it's a blog). 60MN is also clearly not subject to editorial control and doesn't have a history of fact-checking - it's a local magazine written by people directly associated with the Nardcore scene (WP:PRIMARY). The Jacob Rhodes interview is ... an interview. The bottom line is that the article simply does not explain what makes Nardcore unique through use of reliable, secondary sources. Can you give me a description of what makes Nardcore unique, and point at the reliable, secondary sources that lead to that description? If you can do that, I'm happy to work with you to improve the article in that direction. Who is "We" and what are these archived sources you're referring to? Again, I welcome improvement of the article with reliable, secondary sources that actually talk about Nardcore. LA Times, OC Weekly, etc, are reliable sources as publications, but the sources offered either do not discuss Nardcore or the discussion is offered by an interviewee (WP:PRIMARY). You've got an article here that is basically about the Nardcore bands, not Nardcore itself. Genre articles are not supposed to be a list of bands, as I pointed out prior. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete~~. With the exception of this source, which seems to list everything, the references provided are just a bombardment of "...the genre known as Nardcore" or "...including Nardcore artists like..." I searched a dozen or so other GNews hits, and while you can definitively say that the genre exists, there's nothing in the way of significant coverage about the genre. There are no sources like "here's what you need to know about nardcore". A proliferation of interviews, primary sources, and name drops do not denote significance or notability; it just means something exists. If you can find some sources that actually talk about nardcore I'm willing to reconsider my opinion. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion based on the well-reasoned reply below by Chubbles. A paragraph or two could certainly be added somewhere. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Punk rock in California. There's some poor reasoning on both sides above. Tertiary sources are prima facie evidence of secondary source coverage; if an encyclopedia has an article about a topic, it's because it's noteworthy enough to end up in an encyclopedia (and so, in virtually all cases, most likely noteworthy enough to end up here). That said...the encyclopedia manqué discussed here does not, as far as I can tell, meet WP:RS guidelines, and I took the liberty of junking some of the other links that definitely aren't up to snuff. At least a couple of the sources proffered, especially the OC Weekly and VC Star sources, clearly establish that there was a hardcore scene around Oxnard that came to carry its own designation, and that merits mention in a paragraph within an existing article on hardcore. It also establishes the utility of having something parked at Nardcore for user convenience - if not an article, then a redirect. Deletion is not a good option on the table. What I'm not seeing from these sources is much indication that this designation referred to a distinct style or close-knit scene that engendered its own critical or rock-journalistic attention as such; it just seems to refer to hardcore from Oxnard. That deserves some mention within the context of SoCal punk, but I'm not seeing enough on which to hang a separate article here. That said, there should be no prejudice to re-creation if more robust sources materialize. Chubbles (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make some very good points, thank you. I would support a merge to Punk rock in California. I also agree that there should be no prejudice against re-creation if better sourcing becomes available. Waggie (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are you idiots talking about? Nardcore is the father of the other punk in California. Yeah Nardcore learned a little from England and New York, but its our own thing. The guys in LA learned from Nardcore. And its still alive today, there was a concert this weekend. You know its hard to get anybody to write about anything punk. Even against those odds, you've got bunch of "sources" a couple of daily newspapers, a bunch of weekly newspapers. What do you possibly expect from a scene that has had to be DIY for the better part of 40 years? And most of it is even correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.214.124 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Television censorship in Australia[edit]

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

A false article, copypasted from the lead sentence of Internet censorship in Australia. There is no blacklist of controversial programs in Australia, and the list of controversies is just a random bunch of shows that were controversial in unrelated ways at some point or other. Kb.au (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as irredeemable nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. Ajf773 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The lead sentence, which was copied from Internet censorship in Australia, doesn't make sense in relation to television. The topic of television censorship in Australia should be worthy of an article, but the article in its current state is not worthy of being kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve tagged the article for A10, and may be eligible for G3 as a blatant hoax per above and Burke's Backyard. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Group of Newspapers[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. samee ^talk 16:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noting in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Des Moroney[edit]

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

Player doesn't meet requirements for WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moroney played in the Swedish Hockey League between 1963 and 1974 (with some stops elsewhere). Doesn't that count under NHOCKEY? Alaney2k (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't speak Swedish, but from what I can glean from Google Translate, this is significant coverage in a reliable source, and there seem to be other news sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NHOCKEY under criteria #1 by playing six seasons in the top swedish league (from 1948 until 1975 it was called Division I).18abruce (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #1 as a former player in the top-level Swedish Division I league. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one case of significant coverage is not enough to pass GNG, it requires multiple cases which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHOCKEY. As a player from a non-English speaking country who played prior to the Internet era the special notability criteria are particularly useful, since much of his coverage will likely be difficult to access. Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NHOCKEY. Smartyllama (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nawlage[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who's "affiliations" with notable names is greatly exaggerated. No coverage to be found in books or news hits. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to a redirect, but the history must go. MER-C 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle Partners[edit]

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

As of yet non-notable education startup. The article in question cites a number of WP:VER sources, but these sources are not in-depth and mainly consist of lists of similar companies or are press releases announcing funding, both of which types of sources fail WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, several sources (such as [44]) are phrased in such a way as to present Noodle Partners as a startup, which may indicate a WP:TOOSOON violation. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete part of a large UPE sock farm that was using proxies, and likely previously blocked in November. Tagged as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John_Katzman#Career. Don't see why we can't do this instead. Adam9007 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharda Vishwanathan[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Edwardx (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ghotra[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing substantial coverage of her or her work in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG for lack of notability. I found many passing mentions, such as: [45] and [46]. And a few from what appeared to be reliable sources which were a bit more focused, such as: [47] and [48]. However, I did not find the breadth or number of mentions in reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. "Not yet," at best. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a list of things she has done but fails to show any significance behind it. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft since the article creator has agreed with the WP:TOOSOON assessment but there are already potentially useful sources. Now at Draft:Sanjay Jayaraman. ansh 666 03:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Jayaraman[edit]

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

Looks like the case of WP:TOOEARLY. Second place in model conpetition, while only debut role in the movie without significant reviews yet. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles such as this one cover him quite substantially. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure. WP:ENTERTAINER states that one of the following criteria is required: (1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. In his case it's just a one short video, screened in one festival. I am still positive that it's WP:TOOEARLY. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Entertainer is subservient to WP:GNG as per the additional criteria section at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. However, it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with you that it's too early. if you think its right to delete the page, please go ahead. Seethapvj (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)seethapvj[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. Does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. The source listed above is WP:SPIP as it's based on the interview, as in:

"“The screening is on April 29 and I am excited about it — this is the only entry from India for the dance festival! The video is about how we accept our cultures in a globalised world. In Acceptance, we are showing how Bharatanatyam and Western dance can collaborate with each other,” starts Sanjay.

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth: speedy deletion criteria G7, A10. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Osagie (Philanthropy)[edit]

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

Beside one Guardian link, nothing else shows notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 to Dion Osagie. Cabayi (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
or G7, Special:Diff/819694146 Cabayi (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Sainsbury[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E - she's an ordinary person who got arrested and jailed for drug smuggling. No notability other than for the one event. Neiltonks (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widely covered in not so-great (tabloid) sources, probably due to being a blonde, white, pretty, drug mule. Little notability beyond this.Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above and my comments at WP:BLPN neither the event itself (drug smuggler caught) or the person involved were notable. Drugs smugglers are caught routinely. As the subject has zero claims to significance outside of this one criminal act, its unlikely a BLP could ever be written that would be anything other than a wall of shame negative bio for one event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E / WP:BLPSOURCES - I had a look and the most prominent news pieces I found were the Daily Mail bleating about "Cocaine Cassie". No thanks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete as being so obvious a case of BLP1E as brooks little dissent. Collect (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Three days ago I noted this article was prone to deletion at its talk page, and nothing was done. It might be salvageable by the usual dodge of writing "Prosecution/Trial/Arrest/etc. of Cassie Sainsbury" -- if so, though, the lengthy history of her life would be irrelevant, and only the last bit would count. But truly, alas, the pointless prosecution of the War on Drugs is nothing unusual, and it would make far more sense to lump the content in with many other such cases. According to [49], "Her case has shone a light on the hundreds of foreign drug mules in Colombian prisons." We could have an article on that, and this name could redirect to it, so we definitely should not see any admin action that would prevent creation of that redirect. But otherwise it is hard to argue a way to keep this. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in fairness, the comments about news sources only being tabloid ones aren't true – the majority of the sources cited in the article are from the likes of the BBC and ABC News, and it was also covered in The Guardian [50] and in reputable Colombian news sources Semana [51] and El Colombiano [52], as well as Colombia's two major terrestrial TV channels, Caracol and RCN [53], [54]. But I don't have any strong feelings about keeping the article one way or the other. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice to recreation as a redirect to Cameron House. Noting that G5 is not required, and wouldn't apply in this case since there is IMO enough substantial contribution by others in the article history. ansh 666 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron House Hotel fire[edit]

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

Not qualifying as per inclusion criteria of WP:EVENTCRIT. Apart from that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Hitro talk 12:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coincidentally, this morning the Scottish Review published an editorial about the fire, the government statement and the ongoing investigation: "A Need for Transparency". AllyD (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a classic bit of WP:NOTNEWS. If the investigation has larger consequences, then maybe, but right now it's (relatively) local coverage of a fire which everyone is going to forget about once they announce what started it. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Cameron House Hotel and convert to article about hotel. 178.93.234.175 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Cameron House or similar. The building is notable: historic and listed[55][56]. There are some sources in tourism and golf publications. There is a short bibliography here.[57] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that these proposals are to write something completely different, so I'm not seeing how they result in "keeping" this article. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. While a tragedy, I do not think it currently justifies a Wikipedia article (although I could see that that could change eg if the investigations were to lead to new fire safety laws in Scotland). I would agree that Cameron House is almost certainly notable enough to have its own article, and that obviously should cover the fire, but as noted that is not a reason for keeping this one. Dunarc (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under Category G5 of WP:CSD as the article was created by a Sockpuppet of banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick, with no substantial edits by others. Irrespective of that, I lean towards delete anyway per Dunarc's comment. YSSYguy (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep and redirect/rename~~ Cameron House. Well known super luxury hotel. We ought to have an article. Fire can remain as a section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Created a stub on Cameron House.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then write an article about the hotel, the fire would only need a couple of sentences' worth of coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - We have rather straightforward guidelines on why we deny articles written by sockpuppets; that alone should result in a speedy end to this discussion. Regardless, this is just a news story. If an article on the hotel is indeed warranted, go ahead and create it. It is, however, no reasonable to just rename this article and have undue weight on this single event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dixon (hydroponics)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article reads like it was written by the subject himself (or someone close to him) as a means of self-promotion. The claims to notability are not actually sufficient to satisfy any of Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the award he won doesn't even have an article. – Pee Jay 12:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a CV. Notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Too soon~~: Not sure whether is a WP:COI self-promotion or not, but I did some google search in certain past ago, and the quantity are not very meet to the WP:BIO, maybe WP:TOOSOON for now. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see that some pretty distinguished editors think that the page has not established notability. I might explain my spur for creating the paper was the UN award which I heard on the BBC and which had extensive coverage in UK media and no doubt in non-English media elsewhere. It is not quite correct to say that the award "does not even have a Wikipedia page". The young champions award is in fact part of the UN Champions of the Earth which has been running since 2005. 2017 is the first year of the young champions and Dixon is one of the six champions in this first round. This is a clearly a prestigious global award. As for "promotion", I was very careful when writing the page to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines in terms of stating facts that were sourced from one or more media sources and using a neutral tone. It was reviewed by Babymissfortune who is an experienced reviewer. Whilst I would be sorry to see my first Wikipedia page deleted, I have learned a lot in drafting it. Zosimos102 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zosimos102: When a reviewer reviews a page, it doesn't mean that the page is already acceptable for Wikipedia. When I reviewed this article, an AFD has already been created. I was supposed to place a notability tag but since there is already an AFD that questions the person's notability, there is no need to add that tag. I only reviewed the article, but that doesn't mean I support the page to be kept. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I didn't seemed any COI issue per comment at above, so it should be either tag notability as biographies or deletion as too soon. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update. It appears that the Shell LiveWIRE award also has a Wikipedia page, which is another argument for notability and keeping the page.Zosimos102 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- That award may have an article, but I don't see any reason why winning it would confer notability on a subject. Same goes for the Young Champion of the Earth award. Other people have won the Champion of the Earth award in the past, but they all have other claims to notability. Adam Dixon does not. – PeeJay 19:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @PeeJay2K3: With due respect to your extensive editing of football related pages, I think you ought to think again. If you look at 1992 births (of which Dixon is one), there are many sportsmen and women, including footballers for quite minor clubs (to take one example from many, Blair Anderson who plays for Coalville Town F.C). In comparison, Dixon is an inventor whose hydroponic system is an important innovation which may affect thousands of lives. "Dixon’s cost-effective, rapidly deployable product is now being piloted by the World Food Programme in refugee camps to support the supply of fresh produce to thousands of people in what are often uncultivable, barren locations." to quote the UN citation. The UN prize is global, and winning it should be seen as equivalent to a major sporting prize. I have nothing against football or sport, but think you need to take an objective view of what counts as a notable prize.Zosimos102 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have previously expressed misgivings about the notability criteria being too inclusive when it comes to football - there are too many articles on minor players such as the one you mentioned. Therefore I don't think you can use that as an argument against my objectivity in this case. Furthermore, "What about X?" isn't actually a valid argument here. Just because there are a lot of articles on minor footballers doesn't mean this article has any more right to exist. There were plenty of stories about Dixon at the time, but what about since? If this technology ends up saving the human race from extinction, fair enough, but at the minute, he's won a meaningless corporate award and a bit of grant money, that's all. – PeeJay 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The United Nations Young Champions is not a "meaningless corporate award". Granted, there are many business awards around some of which are more dubious than others, but the UN is a major Global institution (not a corporation) which is not so easily dismissed. My argument is that this should be viewed just as important as a major sporting award (or indeed media award), which we would both agree should be included. I cannot predict the future, but another governmental body, Finance Wales certainly sees great potential in the technology reflected in its valuation of the Phytoponics company at £2m (and that was before the UN Young Champion award) and its reported funding under the accelerated growth programme. Cardiff university has also supported it (as evidenced by the news items on the subject). So, I would argue that it is not a "meaningless corporate award". Maybe it won't save us from extinction, but the technology has the support of some influential international and national institutions that to me demonstrate notability. Would you really place your judgment above the UN and the Welsh government (Finance Wales)? By the way, I was not arguing that minor football players should be deleted, since they have a lot of public interest. I was just using this as an example to get you to think again about your initial judgment about what is notable and what is not.Zosimos102 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quinella (Horse Racing Terminology)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Simply a definition of a word, and essentially duplicates content in Parimutuel betting and related glossary articles.

I am including the related articles below in this nomination for the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I put PRODs on some of these in August 2017 for lack of notability, but was opposed by User:CDXs, who said he would expand them to show notability. Neither he nor any other editors have done so. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no opinion on whether they should be kept, but if kept, they should all have the "horse racing terminology" qualifier in lower case, and if deleted, they should be checked (without the qualifier) that there are redirects in place to either the glossary or other betting article, as they are all plausible search terms. The-Pope (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Horse racing and betting are certainly notable subjects. Terminology should either be combined in a single article or kept individually. Deletion would not be a good outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other than the definitions already contained in Parimutuel betting, the only additional content in each article fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Kb.au (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTDICT. Any salvagable content could be included in Parimutuel betting. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what the articles say many of the terms listed are used just as much in fixed-odds betting as in parimutuel betting, so I don't think that would be the best place for this content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep- Don't recommend deletion, those pages have already linked to Chinese wikipedia pages for describing horse terminology especially for Macau, Hong Kong and Singapore. It will lost all wikipedia bilingual function if it have been deleted. Chriskichau (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They are all possible search terms to users, however the Parimutuel betting content is not a detail article for describing such terms. Please considerCDXs (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Single page to introduce horse racing bet type separately, suppose it is different function versus the page Parimutuel betting.StephenLee1689 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Chriskichau, CDXs, and StephenLee1689 are socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chriskichau.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these are terms specifically created and applied to betting at the Hong Kong Jockey Club. The general names for the terms are already covered by horse racing betting articles. The terms at Parimutuel betting need to be scrubbed for general Hong Kong wagering, not ones specific to the Hong Kong Jockey Club. They are also very poor disambiguation choices (Horse Racing Terminology) had first letter of each word in caps, which is wrong. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that Win (horse racing) Place (horse racing) and Show (horse racing) would make for better named redirects to the Parimutuel betting article, and that Quinella (bet) already covers the case for Quinella. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Pullar[edit]

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

Contest dePROD: Fail WP:NFOOTBALL because I do not see any proof that she play for national team or fully-pro league. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Oh yes! I forget to ping previous PROD nominator Ortizesp. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; several references, but they are routine coverage, passing mentions or statistical. Jellyman (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion, I assume the nominator meant to say he doesn't see any proof to pass N:Footy. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! And I don't see any source to prove these. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you very much! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Specific concerns with the references include:

glasgowcityfc.co.uk - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
soccerway.com - Stat site, no significant coverage
falkirkherald.co.uk - dead link by the look of things, although the headline would indicate and article more focused on a team she played for not the player herself
tartankicks.uk 1 - routine transfer talk, consensus is this should not be used to support GNG.
bbc.co.uk - routine match report. Very brief mention of the player, but nothing approaching significant coverage
tartankicks.uk 2 - routine transfer talk, consensus is this should not be used to support GNG.
facebook.com - primary source, not suitable for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: The page creator has just added [58] source, please also leave a comment on this source, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And [59] and [60], thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three sources mention the player in any significant detail. They are all articles about clubs and routine match reporting with trivial mentions of the player at best. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: In terms of the web there is not much coverage of women's soccer here in scotland. The player Nicole Pullar has alot of coverage for a female footballer so I believe she satisfies GNG. [[61]] is a major source of information on women's soccer here in scotland so I added that as a reference. The other references I have added (national newspapers and bbc) is to show the player is continuously a main player in matches. Being the top scorer for the last three years for a top level team in scotland (team finished in the top four for the last two seasons) should surely satisfy GNG. The player was the main forward signing for the league champions Glasgow City (they are a professional club) who play in the Champions League. The reference I added was through the Glasgow City website because the other places I initially read it (I believe daily record) could not be located. I am a woman who didn't play alot of soccer but always looked for information and found very little in newspapers etc. I added the facebook reference because I could not find the information through other media and felt it would be ultimately helpful in information terms. I created the article because I know there are alot of people like myself, especially girls who look for information. I'm just trying to help the encyclopedia and I believe this player satisfies GNG. Hope you and the other editors understand this. Thanks for contributing to the argument GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if there isn't significant independent coverage of the player in reliable sources then the player doesn't pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be really interesting to explore what qualifies as significant independent coverage. As far as I'm aware female profiles on the encyclopedia account for less than 25% of total articles. I would say professionalism in sport accounts greatly toward this stat. The fact women's football in scotland gets very little media coverage is telling. Do you think this should be taken into consideration as a defining factor in GNG? GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for exploration, WP:GNG is quite clear that whilst a given source does not have to be specifically about the subject it must contain more than a trivial mention. That is why none of the sources in the article support GNG. The fact that women's football in Scotland gets, as you say, very little media coverage is in direct correlation with its popularity and the less coverage a subject gets the less notable it is. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article and believe the player satisfies GNG. Top scorer for a top level team SPL1 for three consecutive seasons. The Team finished in the top 4 for the last two seasons. [[62]] is a major information outlet for women's soccer here in Scotland so it is a reliable source. I'm sure the player represented the country at u-19 level but I cannot find any current evidence to support this but am working on it. I've also added a link to the page that was broken. There is not alot of coverage of women's soccer in Scotland so the player has had significant coverage in that respect. Thanks to everyone for their input and taking the time to discuss and give their decision GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: @GlasgowBraveheart: I have no comment on whether to pass WP:GNG, but this league is clearly not a fully professional league on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. You can invite some involving editor in this AfD to discuss whether to pass WP:GNG or not. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Thank you, I'm not really sure how to do that but I will look into it. I added the article as I felt the player warranted an article on the encyclopedia. Thank you so much for your input in this AfD and your suggestion. I've tried to add more links to the article also GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can also read other editors' opinion especially Fenix down's. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: ah I understand now. Thank you GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GlasgowBraveheart - You might consider posting your queries to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women for a more helpful, well-rounded response than what you'll typically find in a deletion discussion like this. See also Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Hmlarson (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
: Hmlarson - Thank you so much. I think the encyclopedia has a bright future if the contributors on this discussion is anything to go by. I am going to look into those pages. Thanks again GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Everipedia is slated to launch publicly near the end of the month. ref Might be worth checking out. Hmlarson (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Kucsulain[edit]

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

With just a number of supporting roles under his belt, appears not to satisfy WP:NACTOR. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any coverage in reliable independent sources or an assertion of notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deuces and Joker Wild[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really a video game releated topic - More Wikipedia: WikiProject Gambling. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per absence of coverage in reliable independemt sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything's Wild[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MergeOnce again, not a video game article, should be merged with an article on Video Poker games. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Video poker#Double Double Bonus. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Double Bonus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Video_poker#Double_Double_Bonus where it's already covered. I've seen this on video poker machines but that's it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the redirect suggestion stated above. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intellivision Lives!. More participation here would have been desirable, but after two relistings, closing as merge, because the nominator mentions that some content can be merged as does the sole commenting contributor to the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellivision Rocks[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. Can be explained in a one-line stub in each of these articles. Coin945 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Intellivision Lives!. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adventure Time#Video games. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Time: Battle Party[edit]

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

Cant find any sources about this TV show-based web browser game tie-in. Coin945 (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say redirect to Adventure Time, but the game is already shut down and nobody would likely care about this flash in the pan going forward._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or alternatively Merge to Adventure Time#Video games - Naturally!!! It's a multimedia adaptation of a big franchise, it has sigcov in RSes (https://www.gamezone.com/reviews/review-adventure-time-battle-party-is-a-slamacow-experience-that-s-full-on-algebraic, https://www.destructoid.com/throw-an-adventure-time-battle-party-with-this-new-moba-275086.phtml, https://www.redbull.com/se-en/top-5-mobas-you-didn%E2%80%99t-know-existed); it might have enough coverage for a standalone article, but if not, it's definitely worth a mention in the franchise article. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above comment. SeraphWiki (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above comment and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Dar[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN Ma'az (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this bio created by a SPA, per nom. fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. samee ^talk 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently not-elected so fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are almost never notable. I have not figured out if he would even be notable if elected, but he is clearly not notable yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LearnUpon[edit]

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

I'm seeing non-notable awards, but nothing convincing past one review to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article was declined at AfC but the user opted to move it into mainspace themselves. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, no indications of notability, references are all either PRIMARY sources or references that rely on corporate announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Education in Denmark. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Study in Denmark[edit]

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

Clearly not notable. Fails WP:GNG as there is nothing in WP:RS. Störm (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this could be redirected, either to Ministry of Higher Education and Science (Denmark), the government agency that operates the 'Study in Denmark' website, or to the more general Education in Denmark. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to find sources about among the false positives even if qualifiers such as ministeriet or hjemmeside are added. Redirect to the cat main Education in Denmark seems like a good idea, with the possibility of adding the external link there (the link currently used as ref no.1 here). Sam Sailor 08:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National ElectroniX Olympiad[edit]

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

Nothing in sources. Fails basic WP:GNG and specific WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass notability. Natureium (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding mention in secondary sources to establish any notability outside of standard event listings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir’s World Times[edit]

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

Local magazine with nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine tageted to Central Superior Services students. Unfortunately the publisher and author aren't well covered either. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. samee ^talk 12:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Final Fantasy V. Was nominated in error. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Final Fantasy V[edit]

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

Was boldly redirected years ago, but I am restoring the page so I can properly nominate it for deletion. It appears to be mostly fancruft, and any external commentary was about the plot, rather than the characters. Overall non-notable listcruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Why are you recreating an article that has been dormant for 4 years so you can nominate it for deletion? Just restore the redirect and close this AFD. SnowFire (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure what your rationale is for a speedy close. It should never have been made a redirect in the first place, if that's what you're saying. With an article this large it should have gone through AfD, per Wikipedia policy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Articles get merged & redirected, then unmerged, then redirected, all the time. If nobody contests it, just let it happen. Additionally, if ANY material was merged or merged-in-the-future, or if there is ANY hope to recreate the article (which, considering other articles on video game characters, definitely exists), then the revision history should be kept for GFDL compliance. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close! per above. --RAN (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - restore redirect version. I don't know why there's been a flurry of RfDs/AfDs for 4-10 year old redirects, but trying to re-legislate old supposed process violations in order to get the exact same functional result is a waste of everyone's time. --Pres N 19:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sourced, with several different sources, showing that the topic is notable in itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Redirect’’’ - Had no notability years ago, still has none. If it stays recreated, it will just have to be deleted anyway. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dice.com. Both the nom and the only participant after relisting twice agreed that it did not merit its own article. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Efinancialcareers.com[edit]

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

Nothing in WP:RS per my search. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dice.com or whatever is more appropriate. This does not warrant a separate article. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No rationale for deletion supplied. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother May I?[edit]

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

Wow. Just wow That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No proper reason given for deletion

Speedy Keep No reason at all given for deletion. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry E. Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An author with no significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 06:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an interesting dude with books on fringe topics but he and his work have not been covered by reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR, no independent sources show notability outside of the fringe bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need actual third party relible sources, especially on a conspiracy nut like Smith, and that is entirely lacking from this article. The fact that this article was kept back in 2005 shows how insanely inclusionist Wikipedia was back then, and is the legacy of lack of any even remote aspirations to being vaguely scholarly that continues to hurt the project to the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial searches turn up nothing useful; admittedly I might have searched harder if there was an indication of likely notability. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if anyone can bring WP:RS and wants to argue for keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Lincoln (Austin, Texas)[edit]

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

Has been unsourced for 6+ years, website referenced in an edit summary busatx.org is now about a Japanese housekeeping service, appears to be a non notable neologism/minor movement that as far as I can tell never received coverage in reliable sources. I would be happy to be proven wrong if someone can find sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:V, there's no proof that it actually happened or if it did happen that it had widespread participation.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmal Rajput Clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I've pruned all of the irrelevancies, can find no sources and note that even the copyright violation which was once here (available at Wayback) doesn't actually mention them. Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarmal rajput and umpteen other notices of deletion nominations for articles bearing roughly the same title at the creator's talk page. I think we should salt this and as many variant titles as we can think of. Sitush (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sourcing (beyond this blog). Disagree with salting - seems this was created once before (as Sarmal rajput) and was deleted not due to lack of notability but to due to G12 (due to being a copyright vio of the blog). The talk page full of warnings all relate to Sarmal rajput (PROD, speedy, AfD) and Sarmal Rajput Clan (PROD, AFD), as well as User:Power Sarmal (speedy).Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 S. Saravanan. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanmugam Saravanan[edit]

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

The references seem to point to a dead link and a comically poor blog entry (maybe?). There may be references in other languages, but I couldn't dig any up with a quick WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. S. Saravanan is a slightly more complete article about the same person, and should be merged with this one. —Kusma (t·c) 20:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S. Saravanan. MT Train^Discuss 07:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S. Saravanan, there does not seem to be a lot to merge, but the title is a valuable redirect as a full/long name. Sam Sailor 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nom, I also support redirecting as an option. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm not up on the technical details of transwikification, so I'll leave it to somebody else to actually perform the move. Once that's done, if you don't have permission to delete the page here, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-physis[edit]

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

Discussion of meanings of word. Better placed on Wiktionary. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has survived for twelve years. Leave it alone. It has several incoming links including from users' private lists of links to words which they consider to be relevant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. That's a WP:DICTDEF if I ever saw one. "Has been around for a decade" does not sound like a particularly good argument. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Elmidae is right, this article is a dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's job. Indeed it begins "The word morpheme -physis (φύσις) occurs at the ends of some anatomical names," - the article is about the word, not about anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. WP:DICTDEF as mentioned above fits pretty squarely here. Being here for 12 years means it should have been moved 12 years ago instead of continuing to remain here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Educational Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability (the reason the AfD from 2009 deleted the original article). Article may have more content now, but I can't find any indication of notability online. We can't just have articles on every little college prep company out there. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. References quoted in the article are either PRIMARY sources or they focus on the students or the achievements of the students. Notability is not inherited. No indications of notability, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy the coverage requirements for a corporation. Not all businesses engaged in providing education services can be considered under rules about school notability. Those rules apply to institutions that give a broad academic education, not test prep centers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph S. Salemi[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. No major reliable sources, no real coverage online to establish notability per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He's a poet, but a notable poet? He's an academic, but a notable academic? Doesn't seem so. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack pf coverage in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Pburka (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even come close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No notability has been demonstrated. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Baller Brand Challenge Games[edit]

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

Minor, one-time, sporting event that does not rise to the required level of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event has been heavily covered by just about every major sports website, including ESPN and CBSSports.com. Not going to post any links here, because there are simply too many out there. Its first game alone received over 1.5 million views on Facebook and future games will likely hit similar numbers. TempleM (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be OK to keep it, because it has gotten so much press. However, it is being dubbed as a "professional" event in US media, and that's not true. There is nothing professional about it. It's played with youth age amateur players, none of which are professionals.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some of the teams participating are primarily made up of younger players, but multiple others have older players on their roster. All of them are considered professional, regardless of age, because they have signed an official contract with their respective club. TempleM (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make more sense to merge it with the main Big Baller Brand article myself. The information is significant to the history and background of that company and its promotional efforts, but not noteworthy enough to have its own article. Jsc1973 (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be WP:UNDUE to get into game details and boxscores at Big Baller Brand, so it would only be a partial merge. It would be better to merge into 2017–18 BC Prienai season if such an article existed. However, there are no other season articles for BC Prienai, so it's possible their seasons are not notable aside for the recent inclusion of the Ball brothers. I'm currently neutral on whether this subject is worthy of a standalone article with game-by-game details, but it's likely to receive continued coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a serious tournament with serious professional teams. As well it garners world wide attention. --H-Hurry (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep" Not only does it look to gain recognition for Lithuanian basketball in the U.S.A., but it also provides exposure on both the Ball brothers and other young talents that play in this tournament, like Rokas Jokubaitis or Regimantas Miniotas. Not to mention even if this ultimately does nothing for LiAngelo Ball's 2018 NBA Draft stock, it still provides potential support for LaMelo Ball when his draft comes up. I say let it stay! – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, neither LiAngelo or LaMelo is still eligible for any future NBA drafts. Both are now considered professionals. Also, you didn't provided a policy-based rationale. We have no obligation to provide support or exposure for these athletes. Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One correction: they can still be drafted; plenty of guys get drafted after playing professionally overseas. You may be confusing NBA draft eligibility with NCAA eligibility. Zagalejo^^^ 14:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zagalejo is right on that aspect. I meant to include draft stock when first mentioning LiAngelo Ball in that aspect, but I guess that slipped my mind a bit there. That's a bit of my fault there, but that doesn't stop Zagalejo's point from being true all the same. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I had a massive brain cramp. Lepricavark (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but in fairness, I probably could have explained it more clearly on my end the first time aorund. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arguably meets the GNG. There's certainly a lot of media coverage. There are a lot of unusual aspects to this particular event -- it's a bit of an international circus -- and I think there's more than enough material available for a stand-alone article. Zagalejo^^^ 14:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this page with the hopes that the community would aggregate the games and have them in one place and that has happened. If the issue is this being a "minor one time event", there are many of these in the football/soccer world with much less coverage that have a place. Thevandaley (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination seems to be based on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT stemming from a strong dislike for LaVar Ball and family. But that's not a reason to delete. As much as I hate to admit it, this is clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: I don't know where you got that impression, but it certainly wasn't from the nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick West (climber)[edit]

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

Non-notable climber, sourced to 2 obituaries. Lacks significant coverage in third party RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Billhpike (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia purpose is not to host a collection of obituaries.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Lopez[edit]

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

The references seem to point to non-notable sources and interviews. Additionally the article seems to be promotional in tone created by a single purpose account which gives concerns about undisclosed paid editing. A quick Google News search didn't show much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete this entry as an unencyclopedic advertisement but the subject and citations establish some notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ~~HuffPo,~~ Vice, ~~and Forbes~~ articles on the subject of this article are significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Thus, this article meets WP:GNG. – by AdA&D at 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No HuffPo or Forbes articles. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well you deleted them... not sure why you did that. Fwiw, the Vice article alone establishes notability. – by AdA&D at 15:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read why I deleted them in the edit summary, and then you can be sure. What you shouldn't go doing is adding them back as minor edits, and then go calling someone petty for them warning you. The two articles I removed are not WP:RS's and therefore can't be used to establish notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has reliable sources that makes this notable. This article meets WP:GNG. If there are any issues that can be resolved, please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyFeeni (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC) strike sock. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources don't make an article notable. Independent reliable sources do, but one of the sources here is written by Lopez himself. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the contributor articles aren't reliable sources, especially not from Forbes. The Vice one helps, but doesn't establish notability on it's own. The rest of the sourcing in the article and elsewhere is either primary, trivial, or connected to him. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheevver (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC) strike sock. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing argument, but seeing as this is your first and only edit on Wikipedia, mind sharing a bit more insight on your conclusion? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Four of the five sources are self-published or minor mentions. Only the Vice one is independent, but it isn't enough to establish notability (which requires multiple sources). Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly Written and sounds like an advertisement. Much of the content lacks proper references. Maybe with some work it can stay, but not in this format. Even "Lopes" was misspelled in one place, which I corrected. 67 Steps is not a company, rather a product, so Lopez is not CEO of 67 Steps! Lopez seem to have lot's of references in the news, but this article will need major overhaul if it is to be kept.Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:45 12 January 2018 (UTC)
DeleteThere might be something here if it was written better and developed further. But as it stands now it's on the promotional side and serves as nothing more than a hodge-podge of random information and YouTube and TEDx views. Tai businesses career is mentioned but no real details are offered and its significance is not apparent. Within the Wikipedia article coverage, he has received from secondary sources are mentioned including one from Forbes Magazine but none of these are offered as citations within the article which makes me question their authenticity. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is promotional, and the subject is largely only notable for his own self-promotion (Youtube ads talking about how he claims to have gotten rich). No good references to meet GNG power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Malaba[edit]

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

References consist of non-notable sources and interviews, a preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the VoaNews and NewsDay sources? – by AdA&D at 16:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not enough reliable source coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PKolo[edit]

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

References only point to billboard charts of songs the subject was an engineer on and their works, not passing musician notability standards. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His record lavel has 21 likes on Facebook. Kudos to this ambitious young recording engineer, producer, recording industry entrepreneur, and hype man, but Wikipedia requires substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per page history, this article was a declined AfC draft but the page was moved into mainspace by the author. EROS ^message 03:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are some credible claims here, there are no meaningful sources about him in the article and a Google search turned up no additional reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no reliable coverage with a Google search. Even Google News only returns 2 results. Clearly fails WP:NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is that insufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject under WP:NPOL. Mz7 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cubis[edit]

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

This is an article about a minor local government politician. No claims for notability are made apart from this. Grahame (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local politician lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his highest claim to fame is being deputy mayor of a smallish regional council. fails WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should keep this page. More detail and more citations have been added recently. Plus, if you want to delete this page, then you will need to delete this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deputy_mayors, and then delete the other 93 Wikipedia pages connected to it as they are all individual deputy mayor pages in New Zealand, Beijing and Israel (there are also other similar wiki pages that would also need to be deleted that have been approved) Wikipedia says: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid". This one is valid as the page meets the same criteria that the 100s of others met and were approved on. This man is also mentioned on a bunch of other Wikipedia pages, so it gives more context and credibility to those other approved pages. If Admin want they can link this to any number of those or with the Deputy Mayor pages. Also, Lake Macquarie City is a big city in Australia. It is bigger than many high profile ones like Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin. Finally, being Deputy Mayor of a large city is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLuke1980 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— WikiLuke1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of mentions in local Newcastle newspapers, but nothing more than incidental name drops in relation to articles on the council. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. Kb.au (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician with insufficient coverage to meet either general notability or political notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable regional politician that fails WP:NPOL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some of the articles in the Category:Deputy mayors tree may need to be reviewed, what WikiLuke is missing is that (a) Beijing is a major international global city, which is that rare class of cities where we accept even the regular city councillors as passing WP:NPOL, which Lake Macquarie is not, and (b) in the Israel and New Zealand categories it may be true that some of the articles may need to be reviewed for whether they're actually suitable for inclusion or not, many others are people who also served in the national Parliament of New Zealand or the Knesset and thus unconditionally pass WP:NPOL #1 regardless of the notability or non-notability of deputy mayors per se. Which makes them not relevant to this article's includability or deletability, because they're not equivalent situations. At any rate, deputy mayors are not a class of people who get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia just because they exist — but what we've got here for referencing is a directly affiliated primary source (his profile on the city's own website), a routine list of all of the candidates in his electoral district, and just one reference that's actually about him (as well as two circular "references" to other Wikipedia articles, which had to be stripped because we're not allowed to do that). This is not enough coverage to consider him a special case who's somehow more notable than the norm among an otherwise non-notable class of officeholders. And our conflict of interest rules preclude Luke from creating the article himself, as well. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being deputy mayor almost everywhere is not a sign of notability, it clearly is not in this location. If we kept any article just because there was a worse article not yet deleted, Wikipedia would just degenerate into an indiscriminate collection of knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Morrison[edit]

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

Not seeing anything here that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:GNG. He worked in the Fairview school system a long time, but that's about it. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Not enough out there to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of more notable "Robert W. Morrison"s are out there (e.g. Robert W. Morrison Sr., emigrant from the Highlands, and his descendants: the genealogy of a P.E.I. family, 1831-1978, or a 1958 Gubernatorial candidate). This particular one - does not seem notable in a BEFORE, and sourcing in article (a single obit (both refs go to the same place) in dailyindependent (which does actually seem to be local coverage and not paid)) is far from sufficient to show SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No evidence of notability for stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obituary in a local newspaper, with no claims of significance, is not enough for WP:GNG, and that seems to be all we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. If some indication of notability does turn up, we should clean up some close paraphrasing from the cited source in the article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete high school teacher, sports coach, school board member, none of this is the stuff of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of park golf courses in Miyagi[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate that the courses listed are notable. Mattg82 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more of these lists in Category:Golf clubs and courses in Japan. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the fact the content is out of date by ten years. There is no indication that a park golf course is as special as any old golf course. Ajf773 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article relates to Park golf, a variant of golf played primarily in Japan, somewhere between Mini golf and pitch and putt. The jp version of Park Golf has a list of courses. No idea how up to date it is. http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/the-japanese-phenomenon-of-park-golf refers to there being over 1,000 courses in Japan. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. There's no need for Wikipedia to maintain a list of all these. Any notable courses can be mentioned in Park golf. The other two similar lists can go too. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially that none of the listed items have their own articles. Lorstaking (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Newman, Michael Z. (2017). Atari Age: The Emergence of Video Games in America. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262338196. Retrieved 27 December 2017.

[2] Skelly, Tim (15 June 2012). "The Rise and Fall of Cinematronics". In Mark J. P. Wolf (ed.). Before the Crash: Early Video Game History. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814334508. Retrieved 16 January 2018. I was no longer working for Cinematronics in 1981, but I was there long enough to provide artwork for his last game at Cinematronics. In [Scott] Boden's own words, "The last thing I was working on was Outpost (1981), which had a cannon and a gun in the center with attackers on the periphery. I left and Jack Ritter took over. He renamed it Boxing Bugs (1981) and tried to make it cute." In my opinion and Boden's, Boxing Bugs was a travesty.

[1]

[1]