Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Miranda[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Baywatch appearance is not credited. RuPaul was as a guest judge for 3 episodes. Not credited among principal cast in What to Expect When You're Expecting. That just leaves YouTube and random video-of-the-day-like coverage by media sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being credited or not is irrelevant - if sources only mention article subject with a passing mention while talking of something else, subject fails WP:GNG (lacking significant, lasting coverage about the subject) and, of course, notability isn't inherited. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:51, 21 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villanueva (album)[edit]

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

I am not seeing an album by Cambio named Villanueva on Google. The tracklist and infobox match Matic (album) which may make this article a hoax. Unless this album was previously named Villanueva before it was named Matic, but I'm not sure. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an exact duplicate, except for the name. Flagging for speedy per A10, G12, G3. For record’s sake, it was created on January 14, 2009. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 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. Procedural keep. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tatum[edit]

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

It is highly unlikely for someone to use this redirect for its intended purpose. Most people typing this query are most likely looking for the NBA Deputy Commissioner of the same name, who is considerably more relevant (and notable) now than when this redirect was created more than a decade ago. Andymii (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:46, 20 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) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Amaral[edit]

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

The article is not relevant and doesn't agree with Wikipedia:Notability. It doesn't gather any actions that could make Amaral stand out and therefore I consider her page non profitable for Wikipedia. As the original creator pointed, it's better to wait (I quote) "50 years and write a real article" until Amaral complies with the notability to have an article. Also, although now reverted, the page had been used as a promotion by Amaral herself (COI). Macesito (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote this article because the subject passes WP:GNG. There are multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss her and her work. The content present is based upon what those sources say and the nominator hasn't specified how they believe the sources aren't enough or are flawed. And yes, I reverted Marinamaral2 only hours after she tried to add promotional material to the article. I don't see how this nomination meets the requirements of WP:DEL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's true that she has had some coverage in good sources. However that coverage usually does not mention anything more than the fact that she is a colourist. In terms of improvement, the portrait could be toned down/ made smaller as it looks very promotional.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the English Wikipedia, notability refers to the body of sources available on a subject, not the subject's subjectively-judged accomplishments. There are plenty of sources listed in this article. There was one instance of COI/promotional editing in February and it was reverted within 3 hours, so that's a pretty spurious concern. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist's (is that the correct term?) work has been featured on the History channel website, Wired magazine, the Washington Examiner colorized historic images of D-Day, New Jersey online, Resource magazine. And on and on it goes. The article only claims to be a stub. I think there is enough coverage of notability here. Sources, sources, sources - enough coverage out there. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I added a few references and information about a book she is involved with. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:39, 21 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) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic Law International[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm/legal service company with no coverage in reliable independent sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed there is no coverage to indicate this firm is notable, and the article reads as promotional. Tacyarg (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, this seems highly promotional with limited RS. Those RS that are in the article contain generally rote coverage that doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 09:04, 22 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, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoodTools[edit]

(Find video game sources: "GoodTools" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article is entirely supported by self-published information with no valid third-party sourcing, and also heavily violates WP:IINFO with a large amount of technical code bloat that basically have no context outside of the article. It could be redirected to ROM instead of outright deleted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable application failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Doesn't look like any sources have covered this to any depth. I see lots of forum posts and questions, but mostly in context of users interacting with it. Almost all of the article is either excessive detail or only supported by primary or unreliable sources. I don't really see any content for preserving. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hellknowz. Also, because it is about ROMs, which have dubious copyright concern, we should expect an article that points to projects that are based on (even if they don't promote it) dubious copyright issues to have rather good sources to support it. (For example, ScummVM, while completely legal as a program, does require getting access to assets, but the program itself is well noted in references so that dubious nature can be overlooked). --Masem (t) 20:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hellknowz. Nomader (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:49, 20 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. Improvement is always welcome. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American entry into Canada by land[edit]

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

This reads more like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It's more appropriate on WikiVoyage than on Wikipedia. Techman224^Talk 07:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:03, 4 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} 08:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got 35 references. It does need a trim though.104.163.153.162 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mere number of references an article has is not an inclusion criterion in and of itself — an article that cites just one reference can be kept if that reference properly verifies passage of a must-include SNG such as being president of a country, and an article that cites 100 references can be deleted if they're all blogs. As necessary as sourcing is, it's just part of the overall keepability equation, not the be-all and end-all in and of itself. The problem here is that this isn't so much an encyclopedia article about crossing the border as a how-to guide to crossing the border: but how-to guides are covered by WP:NOTHOWTO as a thing Wikipedia isn't for. Nominator is entirely correct that something like this would belong on Wikivoyage, not here. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are discounting my "number of references" mention. It has no blogs. There's actually no issue here with the quality of sources, which are largely government publications. The issue seems to be whether it belongs here or on Wikivoyage.104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Because the number of references here was the entirety of your argument as to why this should be kept. It wasn't just a passing mention that was irrelevant to the actual substance of your argument — it was in and of itself the entire substance of your argument.

(2) I didn't say the sources here were blogs, I raised blogs as an example of the kind of "sources" that can be used to pad out the number of footnotes and thus an example of the reason why the number of footnotes is not a keep argument in and of itself.

(3) The quality of the sources isn't the issue. The issue is that the content they're supporting is a WP:NOTHOWTO violation rather than an encyclopedia article. At any rate, government sources are primary sources for the purposes of writing about a topic directly related to that same government — they're adequate for simple verification of facts, but not in and of themselves demonstrative of notability as they don't represent independent analysis by unaffiliated media sources. Justin Trudeau, for example, is notable because he has media coverage, not because he has a self-written primary source profile on the website of the government he's a part of. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable article with an average of 8000 readers per month. The article uses references and provides immense value to travelers. It is among the top web search results for driving into Canada. Moreover, the argument made by the proposed deleter was already discussed in the first AfD and was dismissed. Being that the Canada–United States border is over 5000 miles long, travel across it is very notable; we're not talking about a random tiny border crossing. Perhaps the nominator can improve the article instead by adding more historical and general context. --Acyclic (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Providing value to travellers" is the job of Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. The job of Wikipedia is to publish and maintain encyclopedia articles, not "how to" pieces. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the readership will drop a hundred fold if the article were on Wikivoyage instead. The article's value would effectively be lost. Moreover, being that Wikivoyage is loose with referencing, the article's content will in time lose verifiability too, turning into a free-for-all. --Acyclic (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's job also isn't to keep stuff that falls under what Wikipedia is not just because its readership might drop if it was moved to where it actually belongs. A Wikivoyage page on this would still turn up in a Google search, so anybody who's looking for this information would still find it there too. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very common dilemma existing through the project. What is better: to have this rather poor quality page, or no page at all. I prefer the former because (a) it does not disinform the reader, but provides helpful information and links, (b) it can be fixed if anyone cares, (c) this is not an outright advertisement or other case for speedy deletion. Deleting something informative simply because no one cares is not the best solution. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "no article at all" is preferable to "a poor-quality article that isn't compliant with our standards for Wikipedia content". Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How poor - that's the question. I think this page is a lot more informative than pages about individual buildings - see Category:Buildings and structures in Illinois by county. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is that it's not our role to be a how-to guide. Wikipedia's policy is not that certain specific how-to articles can be exempted from that just because somebody thinks it's more informative than an article about a building — for one thing, buildings and "how to cross the border" are topics where the informative value of their respective articles can't really be measured against each other at all, because they're not equivalent or even comparable topics. And for another, we also have a rule about the value of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see street addresses of restaurants on the page. Indeed, many parts of the page are written in a "how to" style, but I think this should be fixed if anyone cares, rather than deleting the entire page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why are you addressing the lack of street addresses of restaurants in response to me, as if I'd ever said anything about street addresses of restaurants? And secondly, if we "fixed" the how-to content here, then what on earth would be left that's appropriately encyclopedic? Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does provide useful sourced information on a legitimate subject. The style and sourcing can be improved, but they are not even remotely so bad to warrant deletion. This is not really a "how-to-travel" guide, even though it includes a lot of info helpful for a traveler. This is just one of pages that belong to Category:Expedited border crossing schemes and Category:Canada–United States border. There is nothing wrong with having pages on these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR relative to around 8k of page views per month. Deletion of this article would not serve Wikipedia's WP:READERs functionally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strongest possible delete Yes, people look at this article— and they shouldn't. They should be reading the primary sources on the US and Canadian official websites, where the information will be accurate and up-to-date and presumably not subject to passing vandals and ignoramuses. Look, this is one big ball of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It doesn't matter how well-cited it is; it needs to be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already an article on the US-Canada border, I fail to see a reason for this one. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simple reason for the existence of this article is that governments on both sides of the border are sometimes unreasonable and oppressive when it comes to letting innocent people through. They can reject people for silly reasons or for suspicion alone, also subjecting them to unreasonable searches. The purpose of this article is to stand up to this occasional governmental oppression. The article has been serving its purpose for practically ten years now. You won't understand until it applies to you. Crossing the US-Canada border is a big deal in itself. --Acyclic (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica1000. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way the page reads is not a reason to bring the matter here because AfD is not cleanup. The topic is notable because there are numerous books about it including the following. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Line
Crossing the 49th Parallel
Crossing the Border
Trucking Guide to Border Crossing
The Border Guide
Permeable Border
Crossing Borders
Border, Border, Wide and Far, how We Wonder what You are
Law Enforcement at the Border Between the U.S. and Canada
Pacific Connections

Keepor Merge There are useful pieces of information and the topic is notable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 20 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. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK Molecular R-matrix Codes[edit]

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

This article is a technical nightmare and has no value to the general Wikipedia reader. Is it a project? A group? A code? If this is notable, someone please TNT this so it can be understood. Also, can it meet WP:GNG based solely on coverage in extremely technical journals? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) updated 02:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware that a topic needed to be of use to a "general Wikipedia reader" (whatever that may mean, but I assume here you meant a non-technical-minded person) and that something technical would disqualify it. While there are guidelines on how technical article should be written per WP:NOTJOURNAL, it is about how a technical article should be presented, not whether such an article should be deleted. It is therefore an odd reason to nominate an article for deletion. I see many references to it in book, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc., suggesting it has some notability. If an article is hard to comprehend for a general reader, then the approach would be to try and improve it, not to delete it, otherwise a huge number of articles currently in Wikipedia would be deleted. (I can understand most the article BTW, so I don't see it even as a problem under WP:NOTJOURNAL, it just needs some adjustments). Hzh (talk)

The books you cited are more technical journals. But if there are textbooks that introduce the concept or more general news articles and websites (outside of the official website) then cite those. The wording needs to pass WP:NOTJOURNAL AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything significantly wrong with the wording at the moment. It clearly describes what it is. Can you let me know what the issue is now? Also do cite any relevant policy or guideline where it says that technical books/journals might not be valid sources. We assume some basic level of competence with the language in the reader, and if the "collision of electron" or "computational quantum mechanics" are problematic to the reader, there is little we can do. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Comprehensibility per WP:TECH-CONTENT in any case is a different issue from notability and deletion criteria, and this AfD should be discussed in terms of WP:DEL-REASON and other relevant policies. Please do that when you nominate another article for deletion. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first paragraph is clearer than what it had been. The article really should have been drafted and put through AFC first so that it could be made comprehensible like that.

If it's a set of algorithms, shouldn't it describe the algorithms? The other approximation articles have math and physics formulas and such. Instead, there's a Software section that has a list of features from Quantemol-N. Shouldn't it go into more of the history of the codes, as it is briefly mentioned in the lead and not anywhere else. As with research, the codes should be trying to solve a problem that hasn't been done before. It should go into how it is being used. There's a line saying it speeds up setup time? Great, how much does it do so? What about processing in general? What used to take (time duration 1) to compute can now be done with these codes in (time duration 2)? Or perhaps what was never done before can now be done with the codes? Is it something only the Quantemol company uses in its product? Is it being adapted by other research groups? If this were a media piece like a film, what is the equivalent for Reception in the scientific community?

If there are some physics and computing-oriented folks who can determine notability for this. That's why I was asking about other sources besides journals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is really nothing wrong with journals and technical books, so I'm not sure on what basis you are basing the argument on. There are plenty of software used by the scientific communities that you would not have heard of but are nevertheless significant. As long as there are non-trivial description of this in journals and books, I'm fine with it. The rest are just about how the article may be written and not about notability, therefore are not relevant here. Hzh (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the journals have decent coverage. I worry that it's just a handful of journal articles from the directly-related researchers, which wouldn't show general acceptance of the material, like a local newspaper being the main sources for the local-based article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following improvements to article by XOR'easter. Arguments above by Hzh are cogent. —Gpc62 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTJOURNAL is not a criterion for deletion, but a guidance on writing style. This is clearly a highly technical area, but we aren't here to stamp on things we don't understand if they've been covered, as this has, in independent reliable sources. As such, I believe it meets WP:GNG. Maybe we could cut down the features list of collision observables a bit? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of observables per WP:NOTCATALOG, and those should go to the specific software program article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL14 is literally WP:NOT… but if the article's subject is notable it's not preferable to delete the whole article. Rhinopias (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer to have an article, called something like R-matrix scattering theory, about the technique itself. However, this particular software implementation appears to be sufficiently influential to pass the notability bar. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 23 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. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sher-Machherndl[edit]

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

To be quite honest, this may be more of a case of WP:TNT but after looking for days for truly in-depth sources, I'm coming up pretty much blank. He's certainly got quite a career under his belt and his alien status is remarkable however I can find little in the way of genuine, true coverage that meet our criteria. He's worked with a lot of big names but all I've found are primary sources and mostly local sources with fluff pieces thrown in. The NYT source that this heavily relies on makes one single mention of Macherndl in overall review of a performance. The denver post, another heavily relied on source for this is a mixture of a fluff piece and interview as is the 2010 piece.Nearly everything else I've found are passing mentions and this serves as little more than a promotional piece for the "non-profit" that created it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands or tens of thousands of EB1 artist visas are issued to applicants from individual countries [5]. This in and of itself should not be taken as evidence of notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a performer who works in a country other than the one of his origin is not at all a sign of notability.Nothing else suggests notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A friend of mine just got one of those "extra special people" visas. It just took an above-average CV and $5000 for a lawyer. They give out thousands of them.198.58.168.40 (talk) 23:34, 20 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 Montville, New Jersey. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Dawson (New Jersey)[edit]

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

non-notable municipal park. Looks like it used to be a popular place to go sledding, but outside of that, there's no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no trouble finding detailed coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just because there is coverage doesn't mean an article is appropriate. Rhadow (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete detailed coverage is not the same as coverage in reliable sources, which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Montville, New Jersey While there doesn't appear to be enough sourcing here to merit a standalone article, ~~but~~ there is material and sourcing that could be and should be merged to the article for the parent municipality. It's not clear why this was not considered based on WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. As specified in the AfD heading, "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."
I look forward to support for a merge and / or explanations for why a merge should not be considered. Alansohn (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I'm still looking forward to you telling me what the merge target was for this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Co-op--Rusf10 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another battleground here from Rusf10; what does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Co-op have to do with this Af?. Look at the beginning of my vote at this edit, where I state Merge / Redirect to Montville, New Jersey. Is this a serious objection? Alansohn (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground? You're the one who keeps inserting these unnecessarily long comments into AfDs to critize me. You come here to attack me and now you're trying to play the victim. The point of bringing up the other discussion is you ignore my questions but demand I answer yours. It just doesn't work that way.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a merge target, and your only response was to battle about a different AfD. The merge target here is Montville, New Jersey, though I would consider Towaco, New Jersey as an alternative.

As policy states, "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Per policy, I've asked you and all other participants here to consider the merge target. I look forward to a meaningful response. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is it looks really hypocritical that you won't answer my question in the other discussion (presumably because you can't back up your claims) and you're demanding I answer you question here. So if someone else wants to answer your question here, they can go ahead, but I will not until you answer my questions.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I'll answer the question. I would not outright oppose a merge, as you suggested. There just isn't much to merge. The only thing written about the park seems to be that it used to be a popular place for sledding.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The strikeout, which removed an entirely unjustified attack, is a good-faith step in the right direction as is the consideration of a merge. Any preference for which article would be the better merge target? Alansohn (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to city article.AD may kindly provide the sources that provides significant coverage about the topic.Winged Blades^Godric 12:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Montville, New Jersey - or Towaco. There's enough sourcing out there to merge it somewhere, I'll bow to local opinion in teh Garden State on where.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 21 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 Somers, New York. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reis Park[edit]

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

non-notable municipal park. I'm sure its a great place to play baseball, basketball, soccer, or tennis though. Fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems a promising topic and the worst case is that we'd merge to Somers, New York per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Eighty acres. Roll it into the city article. Rhadow (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the city article.Doesn't even warrant a discussion. Winged Blades^Godric 12:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:PRESERVE to Somers, New York as it does not warrant as stand alone article. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:43, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkehard Hübschmann[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR None of the sources mention this person. Domdeparis (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after reviewing sources provided for this "article", it seems this definitley fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Removal reccomended - investigating to see if this meets criteria for a speedy deletion. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy - Google shows him mentioned in other papers. I don't think it's enough coverage to support an article at this point, though. de.wiki seems to have the same content and references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The subject is an academic. What I am not sure about is whether he has published enough to make him notable, but he is on the way to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 21 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, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hasan Imam[edit]

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

Nothing of significance. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a BLP created by a SPA, username indiciates association with the subject. Nothing found in RS. The only ref cited is dead. --Saqib (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability and inclusion criteria for an academic. I am beginning to think this is a widespread problem in articles on academics. For example the article I created several years ago on Dallin D. Oaks, I have decided on further reflection is not notable. I am going to redirect it to the article on Oaks father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 21 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, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi[edit]

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

Very promotional tone. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NPOL because not an elected MP. Störm (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable with tons of unreferenced claims. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being "actively involved" in the campaign of an individual for a city council is not a sign of notability, ever. Yet the article tries to use promotional language to make this seem to be a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being president of president of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-USA doesn't makes one notable. he is founder/CEO of some non-notable entities. This BLP fall under a politician category and he fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Cited references does not even name check the subject. I have no idea on what basis they are cited here. --Saqib (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN. samee ^talk 13:56, 24 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 India's Got Talent. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 11:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha fulfills the rules of WP:MUSICBIO.

1. There are coverage on Kunal Saha in national newspapers like Telegraphindia, TimesofIndia.

2. He has done several foreign tours.Saha has represented India at One Asia, a concert organised by the consulate general of Japan to commemorate 60 years of diplomatic relationship between Japan and India and this has significant coverage in newspapers.

3. He is an esteemed performer in All India radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmlanDas (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the show he was on, per our WP:OUTCOMES with lesser reality shows. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Almost all of the cites are to self-edited sources; the Times piece is about the generation of new artists, not him, specifically. Please convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. WP:SIGCOV AmlanDas (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - GNG failure. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solium[edit]

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

Everything's a press release, press release. WP:ORGIND yadda yadda fails WP:NCORP. this is the closest to coverage but appears substantially based on press release - certainly reads like one Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It reads like exactly what it is, a promotional business directory entry written by a faithful employee who registered a Wikipedia account solely to produce it. – Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara Galobtter Thank you for your comments. As an alternative to deletion I have edited the article to avoid citing any press releases in line with WP:ORGIND. I've cited several independent sources ^[1], including The Globe and Mail, The Calgary Herald, TechCrunch, and Techvibes. This demonstrates notability. I see no failure of WP:NCORP Have a great day! Florencedoubleday (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Florencedoubleday (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I disagree with Florencedoubleday's claim that Techcrunch and TechVibes are reliable sources. You could check with the folks at WP:RSN. Mduvekot (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No indications of notability and promo copy, including a catalogue of products. Sourcing is PR-driven / WP:SPIP / etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Calgary Herald articles are not just press releases, and the Calgary Herald is certainly a reliable source. The Globe and Mail article is not a press release either. Look, most business articles are very flattering to the companies they discuss - reliable sources don't have to be neutral. Also, this is not the best-written article, but it seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH through the Herald+Globe and Mail articles - Mparrault (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another Globe and Mail column, clearly not a press release. There are also at least two other Calgary Herald stories not cited in the article, as well as a third story in the Globe and Mail. If there are issues with the article's tone, I will be re-writing the article in the next few days. If something must be done in the interim, move the article into draft space, but don't delete. - Mparrault (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a highly promotional piece (the globe&mail column). I do wish inclusionists would not waste their time trying to polish such obviously promotional pieces written by employees of the companies they're promoting. This encyclopedia should not be used as a business directory or a stock tip sheet. – Athaenara ✉ 12:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're flattering because the business looks to promote themselves; we're WP:NOTPROMO and shouldn't be promoting businesses. They don't in-fact meet WP:CORPDEPTH as these promotional pieces fail WP:ORGIND being based on press releases/interviews. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, “positive” and “promotional” have distinct meanings. If the argument is that the content cited (and, by that, I mean the articles written by The Globe and Mail, The Calgary Herald and TechCrunch) is positive, I’m with you. If the argument is that the content cited is promotional, I honestly don’t follow. The articles cited do not ask readers to buy a product, attend an event, visit a website or buy a stock. They’re not fluffy or meaningless. They’re not personality-driven or celebrity worship. To use the buzzword du jour, they are not fake news. They contain verifiable facts that several journalists found newsworthy.

It’s a truism of life that the public is interested in educating themselves on business in general, and why some companies succeed where others don’t (as evidenced by business pages in every major newspaper in the world, business sections at bookstores, myriad Wikipedia articles, movies like The Big Short… I could go on!). It is an objective fact that reputable, independent journalistic outlets have reported on Solium over the course of several years.

To the claim that the content cited is PR-driven, or that Solium sought to get this coverage in order to promote itself: That’s inaccurate and impossible to prove. And I also completely understand why you might come to that conclusion with the information you were working with when you censured this article. But let me give you some larger context: As publicly traded company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, Solium is legally required to adhere to rules of timely disclosure of material information. In the US, the SEC has the same rules. The acquisition of another company is almost always deemed material (but depends on deal size) as is a major deal with a corporate giant (again, size of deal is a factor). If you read the press coverage, it largely focuses on topics that Solium was legally required to disclose. In business, material disclosure is done via press releases. What journalists choose to do with that information or why is beyond the scope of this discussion. If Canadian business, enterprise software, or securities laws are topics outside your usual scope, I am gently suggesting that perhaps review of this article might be better left to another editor.

To close, I want to say that I am certainly a newcomer and I will make mistakes. I’ve made changes as a direct result of your feedback. Try to remember when you just started out, and don’t forget to follow Wikipedia’s etiquette. Assume good faith. Be respectful. Don’t bite the newcomers. WP:WQ WP:DNB Florencedoubleday (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree this meets WP:CORPDEPTH through the Herald+Globe and Mail articles. In the tech space TechCrunch is a reliable source. It is very difficult to get coverage by TechCrunch and any company that does is at least noteworthy Mikefw9 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Mikefw9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Almost every article about a business involves an interview of someone at that business. That doesn't mean that it fails WP:ORGIND. This Globe and Mail article I quoted has several negative statements about Solium (e.g. "New investors in the small-cap stock should expect a stretch of earnings volatility", "Building international market share has been slow", "And spending the money required to raise that global profile and secure future growth is weighing on financial results in the interim.") It is not just a re-released press release, it is an in-depth article about the company in a national newspaper. The original Globe+Mail article also has negative statements about the company (e.g. "Solium was struggling until 2003").

Also, just because the article **in its current state** is overly promotional is not a reason to delete it (although I don't think the article is that bad).

There have been public companies with weaker sources that have survived highly contested AfDs - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Netlist_Inc._(3rd_nomination). What would User:Cunard say? -Mparrault (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every article about a business involves an interview of someone at that business. which is why it is so difficult for a company to be notable, which is fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:ORGIND nor WP:IS mention interviews at all as a bar to independence. If they meant to bar all sources based on part on interviews, they should have said so. That criterion would exclude even some quite critical articles that have a few quotes from people at the company. The purpose of the independence criteria is to exclude self-published sources. Sources can have some contact with the company involved. WP:IS specifically mentions as a third party source "a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter" (emphasis in original) -Mparrault (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean based on an interview/press release, which the articles seem like. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
1. Waddell, Nick (2017-05-30). "Solium Capital is a buy, says Canaccord Genuity". Dollarton Cantech Letter. Archived from the original on 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2018-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  After attending Solium Capital’s (TSX:SUM) user conference in San Diego, Canaccord Genuity analyst Robert Young says the company’s growing customer base is happy.
  
  The article quotes from Young's analyst report and includes negative information:
  “Customers were generally of the view that Solium has a technology edge and offers a unique global platform,” says Young. “Very similar to last year, the customers we spoke with are generally happy and are looking for ways to use Solium more. Almost all conversations highlighted the advantage of the share works platform and its seamless global coverage. Grumbles were mostly around clunky UI and slow inclusion of special requests. We heard no complaints on subscription pricing and minimal concern around transaction pricing.”
  In a research update to clients today, Young maintained his “Buy” rating and one-year price target of $11.00 on Solium Capital, implying a return of 10 per cent at the time of publication.
2. Waddell, Nick (2017-09-15). "Solium Capital gets "outperform" rating as National Bank Financial launches coverage". Dollarton Cantech Letter. Archived from the original on 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2018-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Solium Capital (TSX:SUM) is a tech that should be on investors’ radar, National Bank Financial analyst Richard Tse says.
  In a research report to clients today, Tse initiated coverage of Solium Capital with an “Outperform” rating and one-year price target of $12.50, implying a return of 22 per cent at the time of publication.
  The article quotes from Tse's analyst report:
  “For its humble beginnings, Solium is no longer the new kid on the block -its run rate of revenue for 2017 based on our estimates is tracking to $87 million,” the analyst notes. “The quality of that revenue is also high given that ~95% of it is recurring. At the same time, this seemingly small company on the world stage has been able to sign some of the world’s largest companies to its platform as customers and partners, like Barclays in the UK and more recently Morgan Stanley and UBS in the United States, the latter being an expansion. And with expansion offices in France, Australia and Barcelona over the past two to five years, we see the Company on the path to conquer the world of equity administration. If that weren’t enough, we believe the Company has a “clean” capital structure and balance sheet with no long-term debt, $67 million in cash and cash flow from operations of around $9 million this year.”
3. Waddell, Nick (2017-10-11). "Solium Capital gets price target raise at Laurentian". Dollarton Cantech Letter. Archived from the original on 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2018-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  A new acquisition has Laurentian Bank Securities analyst Nick Agostino feeling bullish about Solium Capital (TSX:SUM).
  The article quotes from Agostino's analyst report:
  “We view the acquisition as consistent with Solium’s strategy to increase its large share in the private market, and believe it fits the company’s North American strategy of simultaneously tackling the market from both the public and private ends,” the analyst says. “We note that SUM made three acquisitions in the private market in 2012. We view this transaction as complementary given Solium’s aim to acquire, grow, and scale with fastgrowing private customers, subsequently benefiting as these companies increase their product usage and add employees. Ultimately, some of these customers may move through an IPO process at which time the company can further drive increased revenue per user. Solium aims to maintain Capshare as an independent operating entity with its existing management team, but will invest in its development and expects that as they grow, Capshare’s customers will transition to the higher-revenue Shareworks platform.”
  In a research update to clients today, Agostino reiterated his “Buy” rating on Solium Capital, but raised his one-year price target from $11.75 to $12.75, implying a return of 16 per cent at the time of publication.
4. Elias, Craig (2013-02-15). "Acquisitions accelerate Calgary tech firm's global growth". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2018-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Calgary-based Solium Capital Inc. offers technology to help companies manage their stock-plan administration, reporting and compliance.
  Founded in 1999, the company began life as a stock brokerage as well as licensing its Web-based software to publicly traded companies to help them with their administration of their stock-option, share purchase and other similar plans through a proprietary technology platform called Shareworks, which was developed by Solium’s managing director and former chief technology officer, Marcos Lopez.
  Solium was struggling until 2003, when it restructured, relinquishing its brokerage part of the business and focusing solely on its technology offering. It then found success with a number of large, locally based energy and resource companies willing to take a chance on a local tech firm’s offerings.
5. Yedlin, Deborah (2017-08-15). "Yedlin: Meet Calgary's best kept tech secret". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2018-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Since then, Solium has become a global, Calgary-based enterprise software firm with one million people using its platform and with offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia.
  It has signed on 46 of the TSX 60, and won mandates from companies the likes of Adidas, Shopify, Uber, Google, Barclays and Morgan Stanley; Heineken is a recent addition to its client roster.
6. Shufelt, Tim (2014-12-10). "A Canadian small cap stock with global ambitions". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2018-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Once marketed primarily to energy companies, Solium's product has long outgrown the oil patch. With about a 75-per-cent market share among TSX 100 companies, the company is increasingly seeking growth outside of Canada.
  "Solium, we believe, is at the foothills of a large, global opportunity," Canaccord Genuity analyst Robert Young said in a recent note. "We believe Solium is in a unique competitive position with the only global [software as a service] solution for equity administration on a single platform."
  Solium has its competitors, some of which provide services from the cloud, but none have a single global platform, Mr. Young said. Having localized offerings can add time and complexity, particularly for multinationals having to combine data from multiple systems country by country, he said.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Solium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of sources:
Solium is publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. It has been the subject of numerous analyst reports, which Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says are sources that can be used to establish notability. I included coverage about analyst reports from three firms: Canaccord Genuity, National Bank Financial, and Laurentian Bank Securities.
Canaccord Genuity analyst Robert Young included negative coverage of the company, noting about Solium customers, "Grumbles were mostly around clunky UI and slow inclusion of special requests."
Solium has received substantial coverage from the national newspaper The Globe and Mail, which is Canada's newspaper of record. It has also received substantial coverage from the regional newspaper Calgary Herald.
The sources note Solium has signed 40 companies from the S&P/TSX 60, Standard & Poor's's stock market index of 60 large companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The sources note that Solium's customers and partners include Adidas, Shopify, Uber, Google, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and Heineken.
Solium clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case someone wants to contest Cunard's arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more than two references provided above that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic meets GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- still "Delete" per WP:TNT / WP:PROMO: there's nothing in the article that's not promotional. Just a listing of deal announcements, office openings, etc. No prejudice to recreation if can be done in a neutral fashion by a volunteer editor. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such promotional articles. Also see WP:BOGOF: using up volunteer time to fix up articles like this only leads to more spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 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, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Sohaib Murad[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. WP is WP:NOTRESUME. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gratefully we have not ever tried to include all academics. That is about the inclusion level we would need to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CV Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. BLP doesn't cite any reference and looks like a résumé. samee ^talk 13:54, 24 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. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandalwood Talkies[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG notable WP:ORGDEPTH there is just 1 passing mention in the sources. A before search throws up nothing. This is the 3rd time this page has been created it might be worth WP:SALTing the name Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTCATALOG. A directory-like listing on an nn distribution company. These are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 21 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. I withdraw. (non-admin closure) !dave 08:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum Geo-Services[edit]

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

This seems to fail WP:NCORP. Google search turns up nothing promising. !dave 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PGS is traded on the Oslo Stock Exchange and there seems to be no lack of Norwegian news articles covering the company.[6][7][8][9][10][11], etc. --Hegvald (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, baseless nomination. Geschichte (talk) 08:34, 23 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 procedural close There's an existing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Short. Please see article's history next time to avoid duplicate discussions. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Short[edit]

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

Non-notable film that is entirely sourced to Facebook for it's "awards". CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 19 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. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Talent[edit]

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

Fundamentally an essay, and there is but one sources to indicate that 'financial talent' is a term widely used in this context. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essay. Not needed in my view (as per nom). Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a cross between WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. Either way, it's non-encyclopedic. Chetsford (talk) 17:02, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Kanpur[edit]

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

Delete for the same basic reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kanpur and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Kanpur and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Kanpur where it is asserted that the article is not acceptable due the fact that these subdivisions of Kanpur are not well sourced or acceptable for the WP:GEOLAND policy. Therefore the subject is not notable and there should not be an article about it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Kanpur are related. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: Per norm.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar to the rationale at other AfD's. MT Train^Discuss 11:22, 21 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. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boogaloo Stu[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. --wooden superman 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Weak delete Which guidelines? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the individual isn't notable, then they don't meet any of the notability guidelines. But you could try WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. --wooden superman 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. Articles appears to fail WP:NPOV but that's not a reason for deletion, merely cleanup. There appear to be claims to notability, albeit not properly referenced. Article is probably a 'puff piece' and I'm not sure it would pass WP:V. However, the onus is on you to prove how to article is not notable, i.e. just saying it's not notable isn't enough and you need to explain how the policy applies to the situation, not just point at it and expect we can read your thoughts... changed !vote per below comment 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not much coverage found, although The Argus states that his collaboration with Dynamite Sal, "Dynamite Boogaloo is an institution in Brighton stretching back to 1992", and there are few other bits and pieces of coverage, e.g. [12], [13], [14]. Perhaps not enough non-local coverage to suggest an encyclopedia article is justified, but if others can find more there might be a better case for a keep. --Michig (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in any way meeting any of our notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 19 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. Delete per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Mallick[edit]

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

This autobiography does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Mallick, you cannot remove the link to this discussion, you can just comment here. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NPOL. MT Train^Discuss 16:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable politician. Being spokesperson of a party does not grant notability. Fails WP:NPOL Hagennos (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can an admin please help? WIKI REPORT (very clearly a sock of this article's creator Suman Kumar Mallick - who is also the subject of the article) and the creator have both removed the AfD template more than twice. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the article because both of them are auto-confirmed. I also thought it likely that we were looking at socks but I will leave evaluation of that to others. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the WIKI REPORT account claims to be the subject's son.[15] Could be considered as a meatpuppet, but protection for now and eventual salting seem like a painless way to handle them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed draft at Draft:Suman Kumar Mallick (Politician). Editor refused to accept that the subject failed WP:GNG. Obvious socking involved. Given the persistence and socking, recommend salting. David.moreno72 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPROMO, NOTCV. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for articles on politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Sir, He is very notable and I will add citations. S. K. Mallick (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Strike sock. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I know Suman Very personally and is Very Notable Politician with many reference and inclite cite. BiharPradesh (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Strike comment from sockpuppet of blocked user. --Yamla (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Please unblock my page and account- Suman Kumar Mallick so I may add more informations. Suman Kumar Mallick Sorry (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Yet another blocked sock. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I have crated this again and will add more inforations. Sir please kindly do not delete. S Mallick Bihar State Congress (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC) another sock. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:53, 22 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. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandet Sorpantrey[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator - Reason, as limited info on internet in Thai source in the 90s but some secondary source was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs) 09:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fighter has only one professional fight in 2004 and lost. - see [16] . Fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not as a MMA fighter but as a kickboxer and Lumpinee Stadium champion he meets WP:KICK.PRehse (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is weak, but there's no doubt he meets WP:NKICK several times over. I believe that someone who reads Thai and had access to a Thai newspaper database could easily find plenty of coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have written to the Wiki Thai help desk to seek Thai source for Sorpantrey's victory in the Lumpini championship title bout. Hope to have a quick reply on this. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Digging through newspaper archives would be non-trivial, but I did find some clippings posted on Facebook. There's him defending his title against Sangtiennoi Sor Rungroj in a fight dated 25 March 1994,[17][18] and a profile piece from a newspaper.[19] Not sure what's the cup he's winning in this photo.[20] --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Paul 012: Thank you for answering my request on your talk page and provide the info above. I have checked with Wiki Thai but received no reply. I could find his K-1 - Premium 2004 Dynamite record in [21] and [22] but could not find his win record in Lumpini. Since you know Thai (presumably you are Thai) with your advice I also check on the correct name in Thai Chandet Sor Prantalay instead of Chandet Sorpantrey, and unfortunately I still could not find any article on him wining the Lumpini championship besides your info provided above. I wonder do you know who did he fight against on the championship match and may be we could find some video clip announced his wining at the end of the fight. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't speak Thai, my search capabilities are limited. However, I did find his Lumpinee title listed at a K-1 bio page [23] and his Lumpinee and WBC titles were mentioned in an MMA fight intro at [24]. I found the Lumpinee claim repeated on a number of sites, but that doesn't mean it's true. However, it's difficult to find good English sources on Muay Thai and Lumpinee champions, especially for fights before or near the start of the internet. Right now I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'll admit I couldn't find a comprehensive list of Lumpinee or WBC Muay Thai champions. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand info online in 90s in Thailand might hard to come by and promoters might not have uploaded to internet site as (1) there is no one kickboxing fighter database in the internet capture majority of the events as it is not like in boxing we have Boxrec and in MMA we have Sherdog and Tapology (2) Records/fight announced from promoters in Thailand occasionally is not true as they had announced (even with huge print media at the stadium) as some fighters actually were not scheduled to fight at that night (just for publicity/marketing purposes - I say this as I learnt Muay Thai in Bangkok when I lived in BKK 10 years ago and know some fighters there) and (3) we dont read Thai :). I have checked on the net there are some Chandet Sor Prantalay interviews but they are in Thai. With all the links provided by you and Paul, I also would give a benefit of doubt and will withdraw my nomination for deletion and will put the links provided above into the page. Thank you everyone for chip in info, helping out - a good and healthy discussion. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:04, 23 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. "Delete" arguments involve the GNG; "keep" arguments mostly point to a now-adjusted consensus. Sources are pointed at by Davey2010 but adding "Vasundhara" to the search dramatically reduces the results; specific evidence of reliable sources that warrant "keep per GNG" are not provided by anyone. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public School[edit]

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

This is a school with no information about it save that a bus carrying its students caught fire and a bus driver suffered burns; this coincidentally happened a year after the 2008 Mumbai Bombings, but that doesn't convey notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, school doesn't pass WP:GNG and news incident fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems the bus fire had widespread media attention at the time, as it was easy to find additional sources although it was more than eight years ago. I verified that the school is CBSE-affiliated and provides education through Class 12. I also found that the faculty might be outspoken about CBSE policies and standards, and added a couple of references. Does anyone have knowledge of Hindi and access to local media? Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The school also receives annual national media attention for achievements in the Centre for Science and Environment Green School Awards. Overall, this seems to be a "Keep" per WP:GNG as there is regular significant coverage from reliable sources since 2006. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a secondary school, and that is not disputed. Also there is coverage about it. --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I've not checked the page for a few years, Well consensus has always been to keep these so I'm still going with that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into sources for this school to see if it meets WP:GNG yet, Davey2010, but I'm not sure that is the consensus any more. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Shaheen School System (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the majority of AFDs these have all been closed as per the longstanding consensus, If you want to !vote please do so but I'm sticking with !keep as per that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will if I get time to investigate sources, Davey2010. I just wanted to give you fair warning that in recent school AfDs, votes accompanied only by the rationale that we keep schools per consensus were discounted in the assessment of consensus (see some of the closing statements). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources on the school - Not all are amazing however notability does look to just about be there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources appear to be about different Evergreen Public Schools, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be about this specific school Cordless Larry, It might be more productive if you were to stop replying to my !votes and instead !vote yourself, Although the article looks like it's gonna be kept so it's probably pointless !voting at this point. –Davey2010^Talk 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to try to do a proper assessment of sources to judge notability, Davey2010, and because you had provided a link I thought I would start from that. The majority of the sources it gives are about a school in Vancouver, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 3 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) 10:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article. As an article of high school, it is 100 times better than thousands of high school stubs. More sources also have been added after the nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a good number of sources, enough to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. While the bus incident got some coverage, there doesn't appear to be broader, significant coverage of the school in reliable, secondary sources. An initial search appears to uncover quite a lot of coverage, but there are several schools with the same name, and most of the news sources appear to be about a Canadian school. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable for single event WP:NOTNEWS. Other sources are passing trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've re-opened this per my edit-summary; the question to be addressed seems very much the extent to which WP:OUTCOMES applies. I recuse, of course, from any subsequent closure or action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our policy to keep articles about secondary schools, as specified by Jimmy Wales. Such schools are notable, being significant public institutions and this seems to be no exception. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some links here, Andrew Davidson? At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 224#Schools (again), Jimbo states "My own views on this matter are of little importance, but I think that only in rare cases will high schools ("secondary schools") be suitable for an encyclopedia entry". I don't see how you can square that with your statement about him specifying that we keep secondary school articles per policy, but perhaps I have missed something? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, "as specified by Jimmy Wales"? Really? He's just another editor, who probably has a vague understanding of policy and guideline. We certainly shouldn't be using a WP:PERJIMBO argument anywhere on Wikipedia. He's not a "privileged user". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo established the policy in a mailing list discussion: Partial solution to rampant deletionism. At that time, his views were quite influential and so we now have thousands of articles about schools. It would be systemic bias to now exclude Indian ones. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's views are just one of millions of editors. That he established some kind of view is completely irrelevant, and being subservient to those views is certainly a failing by a terrible systemic bias to believe in WP:PERJIMBO. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable beyond one event. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent votes on secondary schools have shown that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is still highly relevant to the encyclopedia. Nominations for schools based on articles that were of verified schools but didn't pass GNG at the time, were after in depth searching able to be made notable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phor_Tay_High_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanglin_Trust_School. Of course the people who do this searching to improve school articles (rather than deleting) cannot always be around for deletion debates, nor can have the time, language skills, or access to local news (especially if it's offline) to add to the article within the time frame of a deletion debate.

This is why, the sensible option for schools that are proven to be verifiable (they actually exist) is not to delete them, as schools are focal points of communities and experience shows that there will almost always be sources to shoe notability, yet expecting wikipedia editors to do this within the frame of a AFD nom is not helpful to anyone. WP:BEFORE applies here, has the nominator done a thorough search? I would also like to know if the nominator contacted the editors of the school page, including the creator? How about adding the school to a relevant wikiproject? There is so, so much that can be done with school articles before deletion. Experience on wikipedia has shown that if they are verifiable they are more than likely to be relevant and notable. So, as long as the school is verifiable, It should be kept while sources are found. Egaoblai (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You better start reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES again and especially the RfC mentioned there... The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. As the much ignored RfC] about the notability of schools clearly states: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, but I also believe that in almost all cases public secondary schools are going to be notable. Deleting them just wastes time in acknowledging the ineligible. That's why we came to a consensus at one time that they were notable, and while it should not be considered an immutable truth, in the long run there will be an article, and it will take far more time and effort because we repeatedly destroy the article, and waste countless hours arguing about whether it should exist. Here's one vote for stopping the insanity sooner rather than later.Jacona (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:07, 22 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, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Kooheji[edit]

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

Fighter has no Tier 1 promotion competition and fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is all routine sports reporting and he has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. I don't believe that the unsourced claim of being the only professional MMA fighter from Bahrain is sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:32, 20 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Short[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like having notability. 333 -blue at 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, page created by an editor to promote a movie they made themselves, no indication of meeting WP:NFILM. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion, no notability. General Ization ^Talk 16:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 advert for his own film. Cabayi (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate deletion According to what I read, this is an attempt at self-promotion using Wikipedia. I recommend a deletion ASAP. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion and fails GNG. MT Train^Discuss 08:27, 20 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. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hannant[edit]

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

~~PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 13:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn - has made his professional debut today. Giant Snowman 16:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to XfD closer: Please DO NOT close this AfD until 13:44 26 January 2017, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly good small professional footballer page. The people calling for it's deletion have still failed to give specific reasons. jack1986mkII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.172.231 (talk • contribs)

Note: Jack86mkII was the creator of the article, which the ip editor also used the same pseudonym. Matthew_hk t c 14:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any evidence that the player passes WP: GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Struway2. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of relevant notability guidelines. Re-consider as and when he actually plays for Port Vale -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: You can reconsider your vote after reading Struway2 note, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable footballer, as he did not played in any fully professional league yet. WP:Crystal to guess he will made debut for Port Vale or not. Matthew_hk t c 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: You can reconsider your vote after reading Struway2 note, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 18:34, 20 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: You can reconsider your vote after reading Struway2 note, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now. Subject started Port Vale's match in League Two this afternoon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This notion that a debut participation in a game gives notability shows just how wrong headed the notability guidelines for sportspeople are. Even an actor needs two significant roles in notable films. Here we do not require that the role in the game be in any way significant, and then for unexplained reasons give notability while appearing in only one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~: EchetusXe has expanded some certain information based on the sources have provided for WP:NFOOTBALL, however, he just debut the participation in a game on not long ago, I think got a bit WP:TOOSOON. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hmm...the WP:NFOOTBALL have been improved quite well, so I have decide to change the viewpoint from weak keep to keep. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has made his debut.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played a professional match, meets GNG and FOOTY. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pro footballer meets criteria now.--Echetus Xe 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now passes WP:NFOOTY Atlantic306 (talk) 14:11, 23 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. Userfied to User:Hmlarson/Deneva Cagigas Drmies (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deneva Cagigas[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

ligafemenil.mx - Website of the league her team plays in, primary source, not suitable for GNG
jornada.unam.mx - The newspaper of the university that owns the team she plays for, primary source, not suitable for GNG
jornada.unam.mx 2 - The newspaper of the university that owns the team she plays for, primary source, not suitable for GNG
marca.com This article is about the performance of her team. Although she is quoted it is about her team, not herself. There is little to nothing here that could be used to build an article on the player.
toquefiltrado.com - a brief article on the player. Contains some content suitable for an encyclopedic article but not enough on its own for GNG.
lospumasunam.com.mx - difficult to tell whether this is an official website of UNAM, her club, and therefore a primary source. Regardless, if it is not, I don't believe this is sufficiently independent per GNG to not be "affiliated" with the subject. Additionally, it is very brief.
laaficion.milenio.com - an article providing brief summaries of a number of players. Not significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 13:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any evidence that the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Pinging Hmlarson Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ping me Hhhhhkohhhhh? Did you have a question? Otherwise, it has the appearance of more unproductive behavior based on our last few interactions. I haven't seen you around until recently in women's football AFDs. Mostly just Fenix down and sometimes Giant Snowman. Hmlarson (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because You dePRODED this article, and I want to give you a chance. I think you have some suggestions about this AfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Fenix down - Can you advise why you are in such a rush to delete this article like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Evangelista? I'm seeing additional references that can be used via Google News to improve this article per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft / Userfy - I would like to work on expanding this article with content and additional secondary references but have limited time this week. Please move to Draft or Userfy. Hmlarson (talk) 18:45, 25 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. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Motion Pictures[edit]

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

Nothing significant about the company, everything is about their films. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Sure, the references might all be from reliable sources, but in order to meet the criteria for notability they must also be intellectually indepedent and they are not, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 21 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. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Records[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable record label, released material by several notable artists, was Loretta Lynn's first record label, releases were reviewed by Billboard (magazine). Some sources [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] (also previous page, Zero had a charting record), [31]. This was from only a brief search, though further searching will be tricky as searching the term "Zero Records" will return an overwhelming amount of useless material. Label is of interest to musicologists, discographers, and music historians on the Lynn connection alone, although the label also meets NMUSIC#5. The encyclopedia would be poorer without this article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footprint Entertainment[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS about the company, not films. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability and fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 25 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. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Kanpur[edit]

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

Fails the first criterion of WP: GEOLAND, that is to say it has no mention on the websites of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh, so in all probability isn't a legally recognized place.

Plus, the article is unreferenced, contains an enormous amount of Original Research, the content is largely false, as both sides of Kanpur come under Kanpur Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar district and Kanpur division.

Also, thanks to DreamLinker for letting me know about the article(s).
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an article about East London despite the fact it is not an official area and all of East London is included in London. Also "North Kanpur" shows many people using the term on lots of different websites. However I don't know if this helps or if any of your policies say it should be kept. There is also East Kanpur which has been nominated for deletion and there was West Kanpur which was deleted and even a South Kanpur which has not been nominated for deletion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:GEOLAND. Not an assembly constituency and even major metropolises in India have not been split this way unless they are suburban areas. The lack of sources makes it even more dubious as to whether such a designated area exists. MT Train^Discuss 13:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Kanpur are related. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Per WP:GEOLAND Should be combined with deletion of all similar pages as listed above Hagennos (talk) 05:25, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Kanpur[edit]

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

Fails the first criterion of WP: GEOLAND, that is to say it has no mention on the websites of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh, so in all probability isn't a legally recognized place.

Plus, the article is unreferenced, contains an enormous amount of Original Research, the content is largely false, as both sides of Kanpur come under Kanpur Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar district and Kanpur division.

Also, thanks to DreamLinker for letting me know about the article(s).
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one potential link on Google books that dates to 1690, and more for "East Cawnpore". There is also the issue of the dozens of incoming links that the nomination hasn't considered, which is WP:BEFORE B5. Also, I found a related AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/West Kanpur. Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 14:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Kanpur - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Kanpur are related. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:56, 19 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) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angélica Vázquez[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

An additional source has been added to the article, but this is insufficient to satisfy GNG. Al though it is an interview with the player, it is relatively brief and whilst not trivial coverage, is not significant enough on its own, aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unlikely that any footballer would pass GNG having played only 3 games in a professional league. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where close to meeting our even abysmally over broad inclision criteria for footballers. GNG should not be allowed to trump football notability guidelines for people who are known only as footballers. If it can, we should just scap field specific guidelines entirely. This is the same way that just because a politician may seem by some interpretations of GNG to meet it, does not mean we will keep the article. This especially applies to unelected politicians. Some positions get lots of shallow, not significant coverage, and field specific guidelines are menat to aid in distinguishing this junk coverage from the type of coverage that can lead to a quality article. I would suggest though that with sports the field specific guidelines are way to braod to be of any use in weeding out articles that will ever be anything more than the result of shallow, meaningless coverage. The fact that people have tried to defend articles on cricket players for whom we just have an intial, and stats tables showing they played in a "first class" match shows that the current guidelines on sportpeople create absurd results and need to be revised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice towards republishing the article in the future should additional references become available to support WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Share the same view as John Pack Lambert. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:02, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaidy Gutiérrez[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A couple of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG:

espndeportes.espn.com - a very brief article reporting how she was called up to play for her club when the main goalkeeper was on international duty. Essentially a two sentence quote from her manager. Trivial rather than significant coverage.

marca.com - a slightly longer article, but essentially dealing with the same event as the first source. There's not a great amount that could be used for encyclopedic content and the two sources definitely can't be used in tandem to support GNG when they deal with the same event. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman
Delete I do not see any evidence that the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Pinging Hmlarson Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting notability guidelines. I have to admit I am always skeptical on articles where the info box has more text than the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage in ESPN and MARCA is notable - particularly for a women's footballer in Mexico. Article could use expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they both concern the same event, this would simply be a case of WP:BLP1E. Furthermore the fact that there is a degree of coverage in a given outlet is irrelevant to GNG, it is the significance of that coverage that matters, which here is trivial. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 10:23, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Model of Information Assurance and Security[edit]

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

This is a thing, it exists, but all the references have one degree of separation form the original author, if that. Google shows remarkably few hits for the title, quoted, and I have not encountered the term in dealing with complex transformation programs. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just too obscure, both in its writing and in its influence (as far as I can tell from search hits, including GS). XOR'easter (talk) 05:02, 23 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. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Berlatsky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

DELETE Berlatsky hasn't done anything notable for over a year, his article is likely to never be expanded upon and will always remain a stub. Additionally, the one book which someone has claimed as 'notable' to the best of my knowledge, never went on sale in my country or many other countries, if he was of any notability, his books would have certainly been published outside of the United States by his publishers. Furthermore none of his books have actually sold well at all, so how is that notable? Unless someone can quote something of genuine significance, this article needs to be deleted, one of the editors is even called NoahB (obviously meant to relate to Berlatsky), therefore the article is mainly being caretaker-ed by someone who has a COI. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these arguments are valid reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is a work in progress and deletion is not cleanup. There are tons of articles right now that aren't being touched, but that's not a reason to delete them all or else Wikipedia would just be an encyclopedia mainly about celebrities. Your argument about a book not being on sale in your country as proof of non-notability is ridiculous and if it was a valid reason we'd never have articles on, for example, many award-winning Japanese books just because they weren't sold wherever you're from. Same thing about sales figures: many articles have been about financial failures (not to mention this was published by a university press; clearly not meant for mass market). Lastly, conflict-of-interest editing is allowed and unless an article is completely an advert, not a reason for deletion. This article was already at AfD; you need to base your argument on our notability policies and not your personal feelings on what constitutes notability. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (including the subsection WP:NOEFFORT) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Opencooper (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering the UK is a pretty large market for books, I would say it is a pretty valid reason. Plus if he was notable how come very few people have heard of him? How dare you accuse me of having personal feelings on this issue, my reasons are valid and are in no way personal. Proof that they are not personal can be found here: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess we can just start deleting every article on things you haven't heard about then. See WP:IDONTKNOWIT (from the aforementioned essay) and WP:OBSCURE. Also, I'm not saying you have personal feelings about the article's subject, but rather you have a personal conception of what constitutes notability that is opposed to our actual notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it would make more sense to create an article on the website he founded The Hooded Utilitarian which is what makes him most notable out of his achievements and then merge his article into it under a subsection about the website's founder? ChieftanTartarus (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came into the discussion thinking that it would be easy to find some element of notability here, but I cannot. I'm using the criteria for creative professionals here.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. No He's published a single book and has published a few articles. Based on that, I'm more notable than that!

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. No

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No Again, a single book.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No He has produced one book.

Based on this, I cannot justify voting to keep it. Stui (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Made a statement I regret. I will formally apologize for that. However, I will clarify I'm not a sock puppet, my userpage is just a placeholder. WP:NOOB.
Delete - After further review, I change my stance due to a lack of evidence for notoriety. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm NoahB, the subject of the article. I just wanted to clarify; I didn't create the article. Once it was up I tried to make sure there was well-cited information, and dealt with some vandalism. If the article is going to exist, I want it to be at least vaguely professional, which it was not before I edited it. Having said that, I have no preference in terms of keep or delete. NoahB (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @NoahB: Thank You for clarifying who you are, and I'm glad that you made contributions which made the article more suitable for Wikipedia, however my preference will remain the same regardless, thank you for taking the time to comment. If the resolution ends up being to keep the article, you will need to clarify a WP:COIEDIT when you edit the article, or alternatively you can request that someone else makes the edit for you by requesting an edit on the talk page. I hope you understand. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:15, 23 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. Sandstein 09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siam Ahmed[edit]

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

No notable mainstream TV serial or film. Lacks reliable sources. His one film is in production and not yet released. Pls make a case. WP:TOOSOON --119.30.47.115 (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete: Anonymous User can not decided it. The page is full valid by source --Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 06:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Siddiqsazzad001 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update sources as soon as possible, or else it'll have no importance to be in Wikipedia. Thanks. Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable for getting an article in Wikipedia; WP:TOOSOON. - Mar11 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom.--119.30.38.164 (talk) 18:54, 24 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) 06:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Misner[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Kb.au (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not clear he has ever had any role in any notable production. It is not even clear that the one production he is acting in metioned in the work has been released.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. The majority of cited sources are fabrications. Others simply don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples.

here is Constine's Apr 11 2017 Techcrunch article with a title that begins with "Instagram Direct unites". Different title, no Misner.

here is Graces "Pics Or It Didn't Happen". article. No Misner.

Cazzulino, Michelle; Corby, Stephen did write some articles together on Ledger in 2008 but there appears to be none from 2016.

There is a Woo article from the LA Times titled "Where Bright Minds Can Shine" but is is dated 22 Nov 2000 not 22 Nov 2016 and is about Mirman School not Misner.

Swant did write some articles for Adweek looking at instagram but none about Misner. This article matches the date claimed but it's not titled "Robert Misner" and it doesn't mention Misner

UPI published an article with a title beginning "Williams Recalls" in March but it was in 2008 not 2014 and was "Williams Recalls Ledger As Vulnerable" not "Williams Recalls: Celebrities inspired by Ledger". (Note that the Heath Ledger article list this as 16 March as does the Misner article).

Leonard, Tom (29 January 2008). "Heath Ledger 'refused help for heroin abuse'". telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 9 December 2017. exists and is cited on the Heath Ledger page. Leonard, Tom (29 January 2017). "Australian prodigies'". telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 20 December 2017. from the Misner page looks very similar and can't be found

"Supermodel's Last Call to Heath". The Daily Telegraph. Australia. 24 January 2008. Retrieved 26 January 2008. is cited on the Heath Ledger article. "Supermodels". The Daily Telegraph. Australia. 24 January 2008. Retrieved 26 January 2008. is cited on the Misner page.

The website sources are very noticeably lacking urls ant the stories claimed were not found.

Probably worth a speedy. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:41, 23 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) 06:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2027 FIBA Basketball World Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL - Galatz ^Talk 14:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potential host bids are known already, see [32]. 178.92.144.218 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 22 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) 06:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Nanovector[edit]

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

Apparently the product of undisclosed paid editing. Marginally notable -- sources are interviews, press releases, listings, etc -- and under promotional pressure. IP account spamming the website for this organization de-PRODed, so here we are. Definitely TOOSOON, especially with the promotional editing. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong accusations without proof. Revert of proposed deletion can be done by anyone. Anonymous user is the spirit of Wikipedia and should not be discriminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.170.101 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — 85.164.170.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IPs spamming their website include:

2001:4642:B111:0:4C1F:3811:CF4E:57E0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2001:4642:B111:0:F0B1:95F5:1463:51B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2001:4642:B111:0:DD0:A912:3CC:8566 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2001:4642:B111:0:A019:35C7:1B2F:3B20 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might shed some lights that those edits above are made by the same user. However, they are fix broken links. Then Jytdog starts removing stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4642:B111:0:DD0:A912:3CC:8566 (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive independent coverage is cited. Spamming is the icing on the cake. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and generally WP:TOOSOON. A whiff of promotionlism as well, so a "delete" all around. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 26 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) 06:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Arafat Jewel[edit]

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

Notorious for a single event. not notable for the film or as director. Mar11 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is a cautionary tale against the potential misuse of sexual assualt charges in areas with very divisive ethno-religious politics, it does not add up to something with enough coverage in reliable sources. I have doubts about the films notability as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 21 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 Withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Meakins[edit]

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

No coverage in independent sources. Majority of included references are to non-independent coverage or articles written by her. Only coverage in the media are incidental quotations of no significance. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Kb.au (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Clearly I've misvalued the importance of her academic work. I'll let someone else close this. Kb.au (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to approach GNG. Her work has not been impactful in any way that would pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk)

23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

John, do you read the articles and the sources before you vote? I ask because you voted in five deletion discussions within six minutes of this one. Speed reader, or just going by the "feel" of the article? I can't see how you could possibly do WP:BEFORE in a minute.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been cited 791 times, according to Google Scholar. H-index is 17, although I am not sure if that is good or not. The 791 cites are impressive. From other reading I think she has made a significant contribution to her field. Some cites in popular media are also convincing.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly-cited specialist who has had a significant impact on her area. Not impressed with these apparently repeated attempts to whack articles on prominent and important linguists specialising in indigenous languages. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second time in two weeks that a linguist prominent in documenting and promoting interest in indigenous languages has been targeted for deletion. This specialized expertise needs to be documented on Wikipedia whatever the more general criteria for academics.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF with a high number of citations and a significant impact in her field. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF per K.e.coffman and especially Criterion 2, for the ARC Future Fellowship, a major academic award, as demonstrated by recent article revisions. I'd also note that PROF criteria are an alternative to GNG criteria, obviating the need to supply evidence of coverage in media. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. Hmlarson (talk) 21:24, 21 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) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Frederick, Maryland)[edit]

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

A small municipal park that is not notable. Fails WP:GNG A google search confirms that the park has some nice tennis courts, but no significant coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real claim to notability for a minor park. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 20 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) 06:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felix king Eiremiokhae[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to @Meatsgains comments, I would add that it is blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even after I condensed the page by cutting out most of the content that read like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete His organisation might be notable but he isn't. Fails GNG and NBIO.L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage indicated Eiremiokhae is notable. I have to admit that at times my article on Julia Mavimbela has faced the same sort of criticisms, that some say are an example of systemic bias, however that article relies on multiple reliable sources of a scholarly nature. Not every non-profit foundation is notable, and even for those that are notable, the founder of the foundation is not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 20 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) 06:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Dike[edit]

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

Norman Dike was a commissioned officer in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. He served at the company, battalion, regimental and division level but not above company grade. He transferred in the Army Reserve after the war, was eventually promoted to lieutenant colonel, and resigned his commission in 1957. His highest rank and highest award (Silver Star) do not qualify him for consideration under WP:SOLDIER (Immediately post-War, he was credited with two Bronze Stars. To have a silver star he probably would have had to serve in Korea, but I couldn't find a record of such an assignment.) He later graduated from Yale Law School and was involved with minerals companies in the U.S. West. Per his obituary, he was a U.S. commissioner in Japan and worked for/with the CIA; again, no secondary verification. He moved to Switzerland in the late 1950s and more-or-less fell off the radar except for bare mentions—daughter's marriage, his death in 1987. Essentially, there's no significant coverage of his post-War life. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Dike is an interesting guy. I expanded the article because I thought there had to be more to him than "he froze in combat;" I have some decidedly non-encyclopedic thoughts about what really went on in Belgium. I don't think he was necessarily a nice guy; the person cropped out of the picture in the article was his English girlfriend and the picture was taken about the time his first child was being born back in the states. None of the foregoing makes him notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete He comes across as a sort of Everyman-2nd Lt.; I can see nothing in the narrative that lends itself to a hook in the lead. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being protrayed in film or other media does not gaurantee notability, and that is the only thing coming close to showing notability for Dike.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 20 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) 06:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nika Shytkouskaya[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The closest she gets to passing NTENNIS or GNG is that she was on the Belarus Fed Cup team in 2016, but she didn't play in any of the matches. Iffy★Chat -- 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people do not get notability from team rosters, only from actual competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 20 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) 06:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni Thornley[edit]

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

Very little coverage in reliable sources besides a couple of incidental mentions in local papers. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Kb.au (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think notability is established, between the obvious claims to notability in a more obscure area, the academic discussion of her work, the encyclopedia entry and the various awards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Feminist film making is hardly an "obscure area". Do you typically argue this on AfDs to "lower the bar" of the notability threshold? Agricola44 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think citations 2, 3 and 4 are independent and about her, plus there are awards (without citations, adding them would considerably strengthen the argument for Keep). Kerry (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One citation existed, incorrectly in the heading for the table. Now moved and updated for each film listed. Oronsay (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are not of the quality that the above "keeps" would imply. The Australian Screen ones are a website, as is the Culture Unplugged one, the OPUS (a database listing of her thesis), and the Jeni Thornley Doctor of Creative Arts one. The Trove site is a library listing of the Love or Money book, but WorldCat only shows double-digit holdings for this 35-year old book. None of these references are worth much for arguing notability. The best are 2 & 3. Number 2 has a quote that goes directly to notability, that the subject has made "landmark films in the history of Australian feminist cinema over the last three decades". However, the journal containing this quote, Screening the Past, seems to be an online-only publication that is not indexed, is not associated with a publisher, etc. I'm not saying it is an "amateur journal", but it is certainly not a mainstream, important refereed journal whose pronouncements carry weight. As for the Encyclopedia, this again is an online-only project started a few years ago by a professor. Again, not something of comparable weight to a Britannica. So, I think this is one of these cases that looks good on the surface, but pretty obviously falls short when you examine the details more closely. Agricola44 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found additional sources in books and newspapers and one journal article in addition to the sources in the article. I've added them and expanded the article a little. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Megalibrarygirl. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Sources have been expanded, viewpoints look like now meet to the WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the article has been improved enough with extra coverage of her and her work that it now demonstrates her notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additions and edits from a number of contributors have addressed the issues raised. Oronsay (talk) 22:45, 24 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) 06:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Rabi[edit]

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

A low profile rabbi from Melbourne. No coverage of him or his supposed "controversies" in the media, and majority of inline references are to self-published blogs. Fails GNG and NBIO. Kb.au (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He is a significant member of the rabbinate in Australia, because he is significantly shaking up the hierarchy. I have updated some of the writing and found some other sources. The lack of sources is because there is a whisper campaign behind his back, but the official organisations do not comment publically, and therefore does not always get into the Jewish press in Australia. (Smellytap (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, I have no way to know if the lack of sources is because of a "whisper campaign" as described in the comment above, but a lack of sources means that we are hardly in a position to write a neutral and fair biography of the man. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- I have fixed many of the issue with the sourcing. It is sourced thoroughly from the main Jewish news sources in Australia, the Australian Jewish News and J-wire. I believe the updates to the article demonstrate a person of significance within the Jewish community, and an innovator in the Orthodox communities around the world. It also contains articles from mainstream newspapers, and international Jewish news sources. (Smellytap (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete The whole article seems to be written in defense of Rabi and comes across very POV and PEACOCK. The sources in his defense are pretty much non-RS, starting with wordpress.com and Failed Messiah.com to blogs to websites like Galus Australis and The Sensible Jew. The RS sites (Australian Jewish News, Times of Israel) are all being quoted for criticizing and attacking Rabi. I'm not sure if eliminating all the defense and leaving all the prosecution will make an acceptable biographical article according to Wikipedia standards—so I'm saying "weak" delete—but the article in its present form has got to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have taken out the blogs that express opinions, and there was not much that had to be removed. The blogs that are left in as sources are linking to primary documents. (Smellytap (talk) 07:02, 21 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.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources

[1]