Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 July 11 July >

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. This applies to the current unsourced one-sentence stub, which reads in full: "Cyrillization of German refers to any system of transcription or transliteration of German language text using the Cyrillic script", or the previous unsourced/OR content. It is without prejudice to a sourced recreation; but any such recreation can of course be challenged again at AfD. Sandstein 09:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of German[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:
Cyrillization of German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this is a topic here, could not find any sources indicating such a system ever existed. Created by a known disruptive editor (see this ANI thread) and was subsequently TNT'd, however it still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:V. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a question of notability (there are plenty of souces about the systems for transliterating German names into languages that use the Cyrillic script), it's a question of topic structure: do we want to have separate articles about each system or language, or should we cover them all in a single umbrella article? It's more practical to have a single article and hence keep this, nevermind how minimal its content happens to be at present. – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cyrillization. @Uanfala: I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand your suggestion to keep this article. Can you clarify? Daask (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if it's a topic on which we would ultimately prefer to have a proper article, then I don't see a particular benefit in deleting the one-sentence stub we've got at the moment. It's easier to expand an existing article than to create a new one, especially for new users. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The Cyrillization article is little more than a directory of articles on the various languages. Some of them (e.g. Korean and Japanese) have a specific system that may be widely accepted, but German, apparently, does not: the hoax tag on the article is remnant of an earlier version which apparently represents some guy on the internet's ideas, but there's no mention of any specific system which enjoys any official approval. So redirecting is just going to result int he redirect getting deleted because the main article doesn't actually say anything about the subject. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: This page is an inaccurate dicdef of an SOP. "Cyrillisation" means the process of converting something to Cyrillic; but this refers to a system or systems for doing the process. Then this is SOP ("sum of parts"): for any language, Chinese, Thai, Swahili, whatever, you could generate a copy with "German" replaced by the new language. This sort of thing (and there are editors doing it) does not improve Wikipedia. The Cyrillicisation article could have a section on German, and if this became big enough it could be a separate article. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As above, a broad concept that is not well defined enough/notable to substantiate an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per all of the observations above. Wikipedia is not 'stuff we make up'. Languages can be transliterated from one script to another (including some scholarly and teaching texts) but, even if it were verifiable, it doesn't pass the "other stuff" test. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: de.WP has a decently-comprehensive article on this (or at least, on an adjacent topic), de:Deutsch-russische Transkription, with an explanation of who developed the standard system, and a table of it. Although the current en.WP article is a stub created by a problematic editor, I think it (or, an article on transcription of German into Russian Cyrillic) could be brought up to the same level as Cyrillization of French and other similar articles we have. I will set about translating the de.WP article into English soon (and trying to find more sources: I notice the de.WP article is short on them), probably as a userspace draft so you all can decide whether it should supplant this stub or go to a different title like Transliteration of German into Russian or something (tying in to Uanfala's question of whether we want to document all the systems of Cyrillization in one article, or separate them by which language German is being transcribed into). -sche (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia article you've pointed to has only one form of transcription originally devised in 1969. The Cyrillization of French article is essentially bang in the middle of the same boat of WP:NOR and WP:OSE as this article, and the Cyrillization of Korean has already been deleted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ru.WP article has got more sources than the de.WP one, but it's not a great deal more detailed. If an article is created, I'd be willing to add a section about the official Bulgarian standard, provided that it's desired that the scope of the article should not be restricted to the German–Russian system/s. The sheer number of delete !votes would seem to suggest that such a desire is not present among the community (but then, I'm not sure I'm able to make sense of most of the "delete" arguments, as these seem to be more relevant to the fuzzy article at Cyrillization rather than the well-defined topic ostensibly under discussion). – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've put together a draft at User:-sche/Cyrillization of German. This documents the standard system devised by Rudzhero S. Giliarevski (ru) and Boris A. Starostin (ru) and revised by Dmitry I. Ermolovich (ru) and Irina S. Alexeyeva (ru). Uanfala, please feel free to add Bulgarian information to the draft, if you like. The delete votes seem to have been based on the fact that the current mainspace article is a stub created by a someone known for hoaxes, and to have been made at a time of assumption (now known to be incorrect) that there was no standard system comparable to the Kontsevich system for Cyrillization of Korean (which, contrary to comments above, is an existing article). I suggest that if the current stub is deleted, the more comprehensive and referenced userspace draft get its own discussion. -sche (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Paradise (2018 film)[edit]

Beyond Paradise (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non notable film, no RS here to substantiate it. Brief mention of it being nominated for something at some minor awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not find reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage relating to the film. ~ Araratic | talk 10:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson[edit]

Alyssa Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a girl who dreams to be an astronaut, and her dad has enough money to try to realize her dream.

However, while the article sais that she's training for an official mission to Mars, the truth is that she's only attending a series of camps with the name "Space" on it, and she's not associated in any way with NASA, other than "paid camps" for kids and teens of course.

So I think that this page should be deleted in respect of the rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, since this is an article written by her dad to give visibility to her daughter's dream, which is surely not an encyclopedic content. Not yet. Darius Alnex (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Rule 4 of Wikipedia:Deletion policy is: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)". But this article is about a person who has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets the general notability guideline and has encyclopedic content. To determine whether the content is encyclopedic, we need to see the content itself, not who writes it, or on what purpose. Article Alyssa Carson was deleted by KrakatoaKatie on the ground of G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block) on 31 July 2017, undeleted and userfied to User:Trebprod/Alyssa Carson by KrakatoaKatie on 1 August 2017, ‎and moved back to Alyssa Carson by Kudpung on 2 August 2017 (see their relevant discussion). The edit history indicates that this page was probably created by a paid editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody), but has been cleaned up and improved. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article and its subject clearly meet all criteria for inclusion. I was involved in the exposure of the disgusting antics of this Orangemoody-style editor who created the article with the express intent of introducing defamatory content about this female minor and then to extort money from the parents to remove it. The parents suffered significant stress and appealed to us for a solution. The original creator was found to have created a series of drafts about women ostensibly for the same purpose. The re-write/clean up was posted to User:Trebprod/Alyssa Carson by KrakatoaKatie for the parents' 'approval' as a gesture to assuage their distress and to keep what is clearly a worthy and notable Wikipedia article.
    Equally clear is that the nominator has not done sufficient research before posting this AfD. Admittedly, with only 15 edits to Wikipedia, he is not authorised to view the deleted and suppressed content, or to be privy to the off-Wiki discussions between CU Katie and myself and investigations leading to the exposure of this individual, the results of which however, are at User talk:Manc1234. I'll say again what I said then in order to keep the vile content under wraps: I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support. Nominator please withdraw this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support" With all due respect, Kudpung, the work you have done in cleaning this article up through trying circumstances (to put it as mildly as possible) appears to have clouded your judgement as to whether it's actually a good idea in the first place. A number of longstanding editors, besides me, have now !voted "delete", and I don't think any of them did so to piss you off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, I am am not in the slightest bit concerned at being outvoted - it's extremely rare at AfD but consensus is consensus. The recreation of the article was an IAR for reasons that you are not privileged to see. I'm far more concerned at 1) your taking my comments out of context and 2) your unnecessary and subjective assumption that one would consider the voters are doing so to piss [me] off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I was getting it - I was more concerned that somebody might take your accusing the nominator of bad faith and hold it against you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admins can't view the diffs either. They've been suppressed/oversighted. A while back admins were given the power to essentially oversight diffs, and when that's done, other admins can't see them. I can see that edits were made, but I am unable to view the 36 deleted edits. Enigmamsg 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as obvious WP:GNG with prejudice against dubious nominator. Daask (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are few content issues.Firstly she is not even 18 years to be formally associated with NASA secondly they will not select a person 25 years in advance that is proposed in 2033 .The term “trainee astronaut" is POV" .She is not a NASA astronaut trainee or affiliated with NASA in any formal way that I am aware of except having visited NASA and participated in space camp (which is not run by NASA by the way) They don't identify future astronauts outside of the standard selection process.Unlikeone and say they training to be singer or Football player one can train at home not sure about being an “trainee astronaut" The comments were posted two NASA employees here not saying that is reliable it echos my own point of view .But these are content issues ,I have raised the tag .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)
  • Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable.Accesscrawl (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:BLP This fails my child prodigy test in a big way, particularly so given the sprinkling of tags contesting the accuracy of the claims made. She does not have adult accomplishments; she only potentially may eventually have them, and that is all that she is known for. We have of late deleted a number of these articles, and we need to delete this one: we should not be publicizing a kid who stands an extremely high chance of not living up to the potential being claimed for her, and this consideration should trump the relatively limited publicity which is about all there is to work with. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP per Mangoe. The subject is not over 18 years and hence is not formally allowed join astronaut training to be called a “trainee astronaut".The claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and only a few thousand at the most in over 7 Billion people in the world can claim be in actual Astronaut training.It is WP:CRYSTAL but it is a exceptional claim which hinges more towards inaccuracy. If she formally joins Astronaut training it can be recreated and only then can she be called a “trainee astronaut" .Further almost the references are about future aspirations and plans are more News and cannot see any achievements or rather she has really not accomplished anything noteworthy to be Notable and think the subject has no enduring notability of subject at this point unless she gets selected by NASA etc which is not in her hands .There are no admission or entry criteria for any of the Space Camps she attended, nor for participation in the NASA "explore space" passport program . She is only a space enthusiast at this moment as rightly changed by another editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a promotional biography of a minor who wants to be an astronaut. The best claim of an SNG is WP:ENT, but I doubt that is met. I fundamentally disagree with the claim that GNG requires this type of article be kept, and also disagree that any fallout of the Orangemoody affair can justify keeping this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place to cover ever enthusiastic, aspiring teen who has a passion for one subject or another. The mention of her connection to Mars One sends up a red flag "this is a scam". Events potentially 15 years in the future do not merit coverage in an article. If we put up every aspiring and academically strong high school junior it would overwhelm us, and just add to presentism. At some point Ms Carson may be notable, but that point is in the future, not at present. Not everyone who is mentioned in the media onslaught becomes notable. A while back we had a much more covered individual who had been put forth by his mom as one of the greatest physicics minds ever. This reminds me of that case, but not quite as extreme. If Carson ever actually goes into space, she will be notable. However youngest x, or first person to visit all 14 NASA visitors centers just do not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:BLP - there are some references there, but looking at her achievements, notability, and impact, her main claim to fame is *wanting* to go to Mars. She hasn't actually *done* anything notable, that I can see...so yes, WP:CRYSTAL Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the references I can find discuss hypotheticals and aspirations, not notable accomplishments. Newslinger (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article is overly promotional in nature, but it is sourced well. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a news search and the top hits were the triple whammy of The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail. With not much else other than the same story repeated in 109 other papers, this is a textbook WP:BLP1E. I appreciate the arguments of the first two !votes in this debate, but not having an article per the BLP policy helps the subject and their family by not plastering the information all over the internet until the end of time. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) for past precedent on this sort of thing - specifically the closing remark "Especially when dealing with a BLP of a minor, consensus on BLP concerns are a substantial issue.") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is in no way "sourced well". Much of what it says is sourced to either primary sources, or not sourced at all, or cited to sources that do not say what it claimed. Additonally, the secondary sources are not the indepth, reliable coverage we look for, especially for biographies of living people. They are light weight human interest artixcles that basically add up to "this teenager might go to mars, so we will write about her, because that is way eisier than writing about people who actual have impacted things, or even than writing about the various plans to go to Mars and analyzing how likely they are to happen." Extraordinary claims need good sourcing, but if you look behind the mirrors, you see this is one of lots and lots of people who have not done anything, but get a little coverage as potentially about to do something. We do not create articles on such people. All the more so when they are under age 18. Beyond this, being overlyy promotional is a good and stanrd reason to delete an article. All the more so in this case since there is no substance behind the promotion. If we look at the claims this becomes clear. She was the first person to visit all 14 NASA visitors centers. Why even mention this at all (I am not convinced the claim is well sourced either). Why is this so special. She also went to muktiple space camps. This is a summer camp for teenagers, and despite the movie does not involve actually going into space. It has been pointed out above these are not NASA sponsored, and this is another place where the article is not only overly promotional, but down right deceptive. She was at Sundance in connection with a film that we lack an article on. She also is claimed to be the youngest appthe International Space University, although even being a graduate is not a sign of notability. The article is built on weak articles, blog posts, primary sources and even a citation to twitter. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To get a feel for the level of sourcing we have, look at this [1]. Carson is one of 200 people here, and just happens to be mentioned. She is called "the 13 year old who will be the first person to step on Mars' soil in 2033". Say what? For all we know, she will not even live until 2033. This is just plain rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need to be very vigilant in stopping Wikipedia from being used as a platform to build up people. We need to be very vigilant in fighting conflict of interest. If it is true that the subject or a close family member was involved in creating the article, we should delete the article for that reason alone, and wait until someone unrelated to the subject feels they are notable to create a more balanced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one of the space camps she went to that I can find any info on is US space camp, in Alabama. According to the article on that camp "more than 750,000 campers have graduated since 1982". So having gone to that camp is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This remains the only page in Wikipedia that even mentions the Advanced Possum Academy. It somewho is not even worth mentioning in the article on Emory Riddle University. The thing is this is a program designed for college and high school students. It is only at most 5 years old. So, Carson is not particularly younger than other people accepted into the program, and it is not a very old program. Add to this that our one source on this was built on a telephone interview and is a pop magazine that does not focus on acuracy, or even making sure they use consistent verb tenses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came truckin' on down ready to send this one straight into the crapper. But, nope, this one passes GNG based on sources showing. Whether we SHOULD have articles about privileged tweens with dreams of becoming astronauts is entirely another discussion. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if there is a question of if we should have articles on privalaged teens whose families pay excessive money for them to go to exciting sounding camps and galavant around from university campus to university campus at programs designed to take the money from these privalaged people, why is it a yes to have this article? This does not pass any logical reading of GNG. Where is one reliable sourced, indepth article that is more than an airy puff piece?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as per incontrovertible analysis by John Pack Lambert and Pharaoh of the Wizards. A lot can happen in next 15 years when she is actually scheduled for space traveling. Plain case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. 9 out of 10 BLP1E cases make a convincing case of GNG, thats why we have BLP1E policy. Her other achievements don't make her encyclopedic enough to hold a stand alone page in an encyclopedia. Hitro talk 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scheduled by whom? Her own self-determined personal goals as far as I can tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meeting GNG (if this article really even meets it) doesn't mean that we have to have an article, particularly if it's overridden by things like a WP:NOT criteria or BLP/BLP1E, especially in the case of a minor. This is one of those cases. ansh666 23:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also various criteria against self-promotionalism, and articles being overly promotional are grounds to delete an article, even if the underlying subject meets some flawed, overly broad, capture another 100 million bio articles all on living people, reading of GNG. Wikipedia is already overly presentist, without us having fluff articles on people who are still minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I had a whole nice chunk all written out, but my Internet is on the fritz (as it always is). Suffice it to say that circumstances change, people change, and lives change. No matter how winsome Miss Carson may be, she might not be the first astronaut on Mars for some myriad reason or another. Moreover, we editors of Wikipedia should not engage in WP:PROMOTION of a possible astronaut trainee candidate; nor are we a WP:CRYSTALBALL: whether she makes it to Mars is not up to us, and we ought not boost her name above that of others. I don't mean to be blunt, but I'm also not too sure her accomplishments are all that notable yet: compared to Jean Piaget, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, or Joan of Arc at the same age, for now she's long on talk, and short on action. (Likewise, her infancy minority is a major issue, especially as this is a BLP.) Anyway, we can re-create this article if and only if she becomes notable for something other than being a possible trainee candidate. In short, per John Pack Lambert, Ansh666, Mangoe, and Power~enwiki. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piaget had actually published in zoology by age 15, although there is no sign these publications would be anywhere near enough to show notability if he had been killed by a bus at age 16. Carson has at best spoken about space and space exploration to other children, a turn of phrase used in her super promotional Mars One promotional guide, never mind that Mars One is a scam to get people who want to travel to space to part with ludicrously low amounts of money to make some Dutch guys a little more well off, and has exactly zero chances of ever actually sending a human to Mars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like PR puff. Not enough notable achievement yet for WP:GNG, but best wishes for her future. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment This is probalby another case of "many adults or too easily swayed to rush to madness by a teenager doing math they can't". A key point is this line from the article on United States Space Camp. "Space Camp was founded in 1982 as an educational camp program for children using the United States space program as the basis to promote math and science to children." Space Camp is not really about going into space, or training astronauts. It is about training youth in math and science, and uses a fun space theme to trick them into learning these subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article makes a big deal about Carson going and studying at the Space Camp in Izmir. A key thing to remember is the longest space camp program at Izmir lasts 6 days. Yes, 6 days. The more I learn, the more laughably ludicrous this whole thing becomes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lot of news coverages. Easily passes GNG. Lot of latest news coverages in google news including this as latest https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/teenager-alyssa-carson-could-first-12904011 Farahpoems (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is so flawed it is just plain a lie. Paragraph 2 says she is "currently training to be an astronaut", but in fact she has not been accepted to any actual astronaut training programs. Plus, training for things is not the same as being admitted. The first paragraph has too many conditionals to be useful. In fact, to me the biggest conditional is I am unconvinced that the 2033 NASA expedition to Mars has enough plaining in place for us to have started talking about it as if it is a sure thing. The next paragraph says that she has visited all the NASA visitors centers. I am like what? Can we next great an article on someone who has visted all LDS visitors centers? Or maybe someone who has visted all major science museums in the US? This is the most ludicrous reason to create an article on someone. Yeah right, NASA is going to choose someone to be the first person to go to Mars because they have visited all its visitors centers. I know people today are shallow, absorb information quickly, and do not deliberate on it, but this is super hallow writing. Then the next paragraph shows this is largely based on a previous interview with Teen Vogue. So basically this is all part of magazines and other publications trying to be trendy with teens because they focus on trendy teens. Except this really is trending more towards a show "if you do enough self promotion, someone will write about you." I refuse to have as a rule for GNG "If you got a feel good fluff article in Teen Vogue, you have encyclopedic notability." This is the most flawed and failed reading of both GNG and the general notability guidelines ever. Wikipedia is not the place to rehash every future gazing article ever wrtten on a minor who has done nothing at all of any note. We do not write articles even on people who have written very deeply reasoned PhD dissertations. We don't write articles on high schoolers who have done nothing but go annually of more than annually to 6-day "sapce" camps that focus on teaching math and science, not space piloting skills. If we really do go to Mars in 2033, it will be much more based on the work of engineers who develop multiple needed innovations to make such a trip doable. If there are engineers who have developed such, they may be worth having an article. Not 17-year-olds who go around getting fluff coverage in Teen Vogue, so it can jump on the STEM band wagon so that teens who have never even tried to solve a differential equation, and 12-year-olds who constantly give up on doing math operations involving fractions can pretend they have some STEM knowledge. In paragraph 6 the article claims because she has graduated the Advanced POSSUm program she is qualified to go into space. What? I have read the information from that program, and it does not claim it is training people to go into space. It trains people to be involved in actual real research in high atmosphere studies. It also admits both high school and college students. So Carson being the youngest I want sourced to more than breathless vapid articles. Beyond that, unless every graduate of that program is notable, this is of no merit. "Once astronauts arrive at Mars they’ll have to contend with an extremely hostile environment. There’s no ozone layer, so they’ll need to be shielded from lethal doses of solar radiation." That is one of the most useful things the article says, it was not at all related to what Carson has done, she is not the one who figured this out. The article also neglects to tell us if anyone has solved this problem. If yes, then that person is notable. If no, than who ever can solve it will be notable if we send a mission to Mars. That article is a 13-paragraph example of how magazines do not think teems can read more than a little per paragraph. She is also learning three "extra" languages, Chinese, French and Spanish. Well, being multi-lingual is not a sign of notability. THe last 4 paragraphs are the most substantial, say nothing about Carson, and actually indicate that the notion that she may go to Mars in 2033 is hardly based on anything more than teenaged hype. There is nothing of substance here, and its repeat says a lot more about the poor state of journalism and the lack of actual journalistic research and the ease that self-promotion can manipulate journalistic systems than anything of substance. Carson has done absolutely nothing of true note. It cheapens the acomplishments of actual women astronauts, women scientists and women engineers that people create such vapid articles about someone who has done nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per ignore all rules. This is a GNG keep on the face of it, but there is absolutely no way that an article about a young minor whose sole claim to fame is well publicized participation in space camps should be the subject of encyclopedic coverage. Nothing good can come of this article. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an IAR argument. We really need to get away from this notion that meeting GNG means a subject must have an article (or must be kept at AfD). That's really not supported by the guideline. Sure, it's usually a good indicator of suitability, but it's hardly the only consideration in play. ansh666 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a long standard of GNG that interviews do not add to notability. The "articles" about Carson are really just interviews disguised as something else. They do not represent examples of 3rd-party sources, but of lazy journalists writing vapid articles to appeal to a negotiation of what they think teens want, and the hype for STEM, but hyping someone who has gone to multiple math and science camps, which have the sexy souding name "space camp", and ignoring anything of substnace about this, showing a general lack of indepdence, or fact checking. These are not actually 3rd-party sources that add towards GNG, they are disguised interviews that can not be used as the basis of a reliable article, and are actual show that the subject does not currently pass GNG ever, so a realistic reading of the sources and GNG clearly shows that Carson does not pass it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Salt Deny. This sort of thing needs to stop. I have thought about starting WP:PRODIGY for some time now, and it really needs to be done, but I haven't carved out the time. This is just another in the list to add to the pile. Writing articles on living prodigious children is simply not something Wikipedia should be doing without a MUCH higher bar than the normal and weak "notability" rules. The media is just too culpable in WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure how Carson even counts as a prodigy. She is more of a super hyped person than a prodigy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • After considering a WP:BLPMINOR in the past, I'm happy to simply apply WP:IAR in the rare situations like this where there is a biography of a minor without any claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What course of action are you advocating? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to some claims, there are not a ton of high quality sources in the article. The fact that the most notable thing she did was be in a camp is telling. Not enough notability to keep. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotional with no real accomplishments. There seems to be an effort to make this person go viral with ridiculous posts about how she is "expecting to earn a Ph.D. in astrobiology" while not even completing high school yet. IZ99uni (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Attending a bunch of space-themed summer camps is in no way a notable event, nor is going to all NASA Visitor Centers. If that was the standard for notability, then all boy and girl scouts should get an article too. Also, this "Advanced Possum Academy" seems to be just a five-day program that was started in the Fall 2007 with an admission cost of $3900 with no actual requirements for admission. A Google search also shows that there are only mentions from external sources of this program are simply just a long series of blog articles regurgitating that Alyssa Carson was the youngest person to attend it. There is simply no established noteworthiness to this program. As far as I can tell, her only possible claim for notability is that she received coverage from news websites and blogs for wanting to be the first person to land in Mars. To be blunt: so what? The Daily Mail is literally flooded with off-beat/general interest articles covering (and sensationalizing) stories from regular people. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 11:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not entirely relevant, but frankly it seems fairly obvious that there is a bit of self-promotion going on here. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 11:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Media references are fluff and have no depth. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hope she achieves each of the goals she has reiterated to each audience and reporter. Until then it is WP:TOSOON. This appears to be a very driven young lady who is either herself or has a parent or someone else who is very skilled at promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for that promotion. She, and apparently her family, are very adept at promoting her. Her father is the owner of Pelican Broadcasting, a local sports cable channel and radio station in her hometown of Baton Rouge.
Citation overkill (do we need 2 citations for the sentence identifying the high school she attends?) brings notability into question. The laundry list of media appearances is questionable as well. These are red flag seen in similarly promotional articles.
The primary claim to notability here is this young lady's enthusiasm for spaceflight, her (and her father's) well traveled drive to experience as many camps and workshops as possible, and above all her goal of becoming an astronaut and traveling to Mars.
Media coverage is numerous but lacks depth and substance. Each article or appearance repeats the same bullets from her bio along with a few quotes. She has no affiliation with NASA. As others have noted, is not part of any NASA astronaut training program. NASA is very \specific about affiliations. Even NASA contractors are very careful about not even implying an affiliation that is not there. The blue flight suit is a costume and the helmet a toy available at any NASA Visitor Center gift shop.
Her participation in various Space Camps is also unremarkable. 750k have attended the camp in Huntsville, AL alone. Returning multiple times is not unusual. "Ambassadors" for the Mars One program promote this commercial venture, nothing more. Mars One also does not have the best reputation within the aerospace community. Her (and presumably her family's) promotional skills were probably very attractive to the Mars One program.
While she did receive some attention from NASA, this was not for anything on her resume but instead for being the first to complete the NASA Passport program. While this may have an impressive sound, it is a tourism promotion program similar to one created by the National Park Service. Participants receive stamps for each NASA visitor center they travel to. She was recognized as the first to visit all 14 centers across 9 states and was rewarded with a trip to the National Air and Space Museum to share her goal of traveling to Mars. This does little to establish notability here.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also see this article has been translated to the Arabic, Catalonian, Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, presumably from earlier versions of this article with even more factual errors including the claim that her occupation is "astronaut". Results of this discussion (either way) should be noted on those pages as well.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional piece. She has not done anything notable yet. If she accomplishes any of her "dreams", she will one day become notable. Attending various space camps does not make one notable. Plenty of references, but the references don't actually assert notability if you read them. Enigmamsg 22:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is grossly self-promotional in nature when you read it critically and it is misleading. The articles cited are feel good puff pieces with little journalistic integrity. I don't want to parrot what has already been said stated above in regards to the quality of the references. There is nothing notable about her achievements at this point in time. This article lacks any real substance. "She is also the youngest applicant to International Space University." Even if she was noteworthy, this fact most certainly is nothing more than pointless trivia. In any group, *someone* has to be the youngest, and being the youngest applicant isn't an achievement in this case. She isn't the youngest by a significant amount of time either. While I sincerely wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors and I hope that one day she will be notable enough to reinstate this Wikipedia page, as of now she has yet to achieve anything truly unique and notable.
There are so many high schoolers with ambitions, which is great, but there are too many hurdles in the near future that statistically a large portion of those kids will not overcome. Just consider all the college freshmen who are "pre-med" until they take organic chemistry: there is not a great deal of difference between those freshmen and Alyssa. Obviously her family is successful in promoting her giving the barrage of media attention she's getting, and that's good for her, but Wikipedia should not be part of that promotional platform. This article seems to primarily serve as an instrument of faux credibility in promoting her to those media outlets. These kinds of articles are a threat to Wikipedia's integrity.Bearpics (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as G12 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose rosette virus[edit]

Rose rosette virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be blatant plagiarism from this website: https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Rose_Rosette_Virus.

It also appears that the user that created this article, User:Colored, had created this same article 10 days earlier and the article was speedily deleted for plagiarism and copyright infringement of another website. I'm not sure how I can nominate for speedy deletion, however. Thanks, Pagliaccious (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a tool called Twinkle which allows you to two-click nominate things for CSD along with some other features. I G12'd the article. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus was that the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument was invalid Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Riches[edit]

Tanya Riches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The dozen or so references are primary sources, brief mentions, and generally unreliable sources. Her songwriting and other work has not provided any lasting notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lerner (environmentalist)[edit]

Michael Lerner (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BASIC. An internet search reveals no sources which discuss this person beyond incidental coverage. Daask (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rintatolimod. Sandstein 12:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oragen[edit]

Oragen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Natureium (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rintatolimod - Oragen® is just an oral-delivery formulation of Ampligen®, the proprietary name for Rintatolimod ("Hemispherx has also developed an oral version of the drug (Oragen®), which is undergoing preclinical evaluation." [2]). We don't need a separate page for an alternative formulation of the same drug (particularly given that it was in preclinical trials in 1993 and still in preclinical trials in 2004, making me doubt it ever progressed beyond that point). There can be no question of the mentions I have found providing independent notability - most of what I am finding originates with Hemispherx. I would suggest 'merge' but our existing article doesn't have anything worth merging, and we actually already refer to Oragen in the last sentence of the rintatolimod article, just not by name. [As an aside, it looks to me like parts of the rintatolimod article rely too much on company-generated material.] Agricolae (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hemispherx Biopharma should be redirected there too. The existing article consists of WP:ROUTINE business reporting, and stories about Ampligen®/Rintatolimod. As best I can tell, this is the equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT, that the company's sole claim to notability is this drug. Agricolae (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: Nominated separately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemispherx Biopharma Daask (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect though a delete might be reasonable. I don't see secondary coverage, though some journal articles I can't read may qualify. I'm not sure this is more notable than (several) companies of this name. The article's claim They are undergoing pre-clinical (in-vitro) trials is almost certainly inaccurate at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Diving Institute[edit]

International Diving Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been around for over 10 years, yet remains almost entirely unsourced. That indicates that there are unlikely to be sources available to demonstrate its notability. Searching for sources finds little independent coverage beyond a few blogs and videos from students. It fails GNG and NCORP and it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". RexxS (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article by Defense Visual Information Distribution Service: [3]. WCBD-TV local news article about how it is a place where people can train for high-paying jobs. They list 9 industries, and the first video is a three-minute television video segment from their newscast on Commercial Diving (IDI) [4] Rebecca Ziegler article of her training at IDI - California Diver [5] Welding Journal has coverage on a student for IDI [6] College Is for Suckers: The First College Guide You Should Read book about vocational training (reviewed by Kirkus) briefly listing IDI as among the three largest schools in the US for commercial diving. I cite this because it's a secondary source book that's far removed from the locals. [7] LeisurePro (cited in some Wikipedia articles) lists it among the best commercial diving schools [8] I would treat this as a vocational / training school rather than the academic one, so WP:ORGCRIT applies over WP:NSCHOOL. Seabee one is okay, it's showing that the US Navy is using IDI to train their UCT-2 team. The Palmetto ones are light coverage but pinpoint when the institute was established, and track their tuition, and the CDiver and California Diver articles are in-depth. The Counton2 (WCBD-TV) one is in-depth. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one's from International Diving Schools Association which ran a feature on the school in its newsletter/journal [9] In-depth for sure; I've added a bunch of detail on its facilities from this article. Also finding early snapshots from Better Business Bureau and other company sites back when it was just a dive shop and being established. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) updated 02:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus for deletion is established. North America1000 01:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hicks-Beach[edit]

Nicholas Hicks-Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The sources come nowhere near to showing he meets notability criteria. 1 is his agents page and 2 and 3 don't mention him. Nothing found in a before search that show sufficient notability Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Contested deletion==

  • Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Hicks-Beach is a recognized industry figure with a verifiable body work that has been recognized as notable and worthy of documenting by Wikipedia beforehand. Writers will far smaller and/or less notable filmographies have been allowed articles here before, such as Cameron McAllister and Andrew Rattenbury, and there seems to be no issue.SavageEditor (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each article is judged independently of others and the sources that have been added have to show notability. If Hicks-Beach is a recognised figure then there should be sources to show this. You have not added any. Please read WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I think you were right about Cameron McAllister and Andrew Rattenbury they are no more notable than this person so I have nominted for deletion too. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Geekdom Con[edit]

Thy Geekdom Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local (Philadelphia area) fan convention. To quote the PROD tag removed by the article creator, "Very close to CSD A7 - but only local references asserting importance of this event are shown. Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT." Calton | Talk 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has credible sources from state papers and national anime websites.--Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Note: editor is creator of the article[reply]
  • See phrasing above. re: "local sources". And the "national anime websites" are simple event listings and straight-up press releases. --Calton | Talk 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://technical.ly/delaware/2015/11/16/thy-geekdom-con-innovation-week/
  2. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/life/2015/11/12/geekdomunitesforonedayconinwilmington/75291430/
  3. http://www.delawarebusinesstimes.com/geekdom-con-ii-grows-stronger-each-year/
Coverage seems WP:DIVERSE. Daask (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeMel Humes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
LeMel Humes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:GNG. Some of the projects he worked on may be notable but he's not the subject of any of the references. Previously speedy deleted, may require salting. Ifnord (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was submitted as a draft and an expert from Wikipedia approved it after checking everything, @Firestone2018: @Boleyn:. I read WP:MUSICBIO it states that, Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  • Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
  • Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  • Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  • Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  • Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Now you can compare, the subject meets all of this criteria and even his Categories are available on Wikipedia. Calabond (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:GNG.157.37.101.237 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Admins may want to check out the history of this nomination. The nom above says that the article was speedy deleted previously, as if that should be relevant now, but a look at the first nomination shows that it was a speedy G7 requested by the article's creator. The current version started out in draft space and several editors collaborated and moved it into the main space, showing that the article was deemed worthy of WP. There was also no reason given for the one "strong delete" vote above except for name-dropping a couple of policies. I see the need for expansion, not deletion. Sources are strong enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with the above comments.100.35.103.125 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) — 100.35.103.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:There are special categories on Wikipedia with his name, Most of his songs have independent pages as well and he clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO.Calabond (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adelaide Football Club#AFL Women's team. Sandstein 12:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's)[edit]

Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award, the only independent possibly reliable source I could find was "The Advertiser" on the "Adelaide Now" website, which mentioned the award once. Source from the club and the AFL aren't independent. Fram (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still a bit unsure about these articles and whether they should be redirected or kept, so I'll wait to see the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) to see where consensus is at. Just thought I'd add a bit more clarity about the sources for this article; there are dedicated articles about the award by The Advertiser for the two that have been awarded (not just one time mentions) [14] and [15] in addition to the aforementioned source mentioned by 4TheWynne and InDaily. Flickerd (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Absence. Per WP:ATD, redirecting is a stronger argument than straight up deletion. If the band is deleted, those redirects will be deleted anyway. SoWhy 10:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riders of the Plague[edit]

Riders of the Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG 1 source that is user generated content. Nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dom from Paris (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect with history - Keep, or redirect with history as valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning for a keep? Does it meet WP:NALBUM Dom from Paris (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The band may be nn itself, so unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Domdeparis:, I am indifferent between Keep and "Redirect with history", so long as the history remains in tact with this valid search term. If the band is non notable, then it too should be nominated for AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get that but normally a keep !vote even if it is tagged onto a redirect !vote should be motivated by guidelines or policy or may be ignored and as per WP:DISCUSSAFD please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Absence. SoWhy 10:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Unbound[edit]

Enemy Unbound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG of the 2 sources one doesn't even mention this album and the other is a blog review. Nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect with history - Keep, or redirect with history as valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning for keep? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Domdeparis:, I am indifferent between Keep and "Redirect with history", so long as the history remains in tact with this valid search term. If the band is non notable, then it too should be nominated for AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get that but normally a keep !vote even if it is tagged onto a redirect !vote should be motivated by guidelines or policy or may be ignored and as per WP:DISCUSSAFD please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 (British Board of Film Classification)[edit]

18 (British Board of Film Classification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is redundant as it's already covered in British Board of Film Classification and isn't notable enough to be included (why does an individual rating need its own page? should other ratings get their own pages too?) Kylesenior (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redundancy (or overlap) is not a reason to delete if this article about a sub-topic (a specific rating under a system) is explored more in depth than the system's article would do. The system's article does not have an "18 certificate" section or subsection to look up for coverage focused on that certificate alone. Now the question is how much the 18 certificate has been discussed to qualify as non-trivial coverage that can be summarized in a standalone article. This article's sourcing is not extensive at all, but we should at least look to see what exists out there about this certificate and its historical and cultural connotations. Judging from what I've read in the past, it seems like Wikipedia could easily have an article about MPAA's R rating alone. Obviously the BBFC's 18 certificate is not an exact parallel, but I think there would likely be similar coverage relating to audience access and profitability. Just because Wikipedia has not had rating-focused articles does not directly mean it should not have them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It is not implausible that we could have an article about each rating but History of British film certificates covers this pretty well so I don't think we absolutely have to do so. My main concern is verifiability. The article is poorly referenced and could well have an OR problem. Better references could move it to a weak keep for me so I certainly don't think that it is intrinsically irredeemable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to British Board of Film Classification#Current certificates per past consensuses involving parental rating systems and individual ratings (for instance, TV parental guidelines (US) with TV-MA). Doesn't need a breakout. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect BOVINEBOY2008 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are informative pages on both the 18 and R18 classification. To incorporate all this into the main page would risk overwhelming it with detail and unbalancing the content. A certain amount of redundancy is necessary. It would help to have more explicit links to signpost the subpages.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What else is there to expand on? It's an adults-only rating. Most of the article is unsourced textwalls about film cuts, bloody stuff, obvious items such as A Serbian Film needing additional cuts to actually appear on a screen, and inane micromanagement of sex scenes. The text can easily be cut down considerably and remove the fine and minute detail and merged into the BBFC article. Nate • (chatter) 08:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (perhaps a little weak, mind), as I feel the article justifies its own inclusion. I would not want to see a merger and redirecting would not serve any purpose. The article could do with a cleanup, but I don't feel it's redundant or useless. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the 18 cert in the UK has enough standalone notability for its own article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above - Enough standalone notabailty for an article, Plenty of soucres on Google, Passes GNG easily. –Davey2010Talk 21:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corbat[edit]

Michael Corbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not quite sure if it meets notability. There isn't any references about his deeds outside of information about the guy. A lot of content on the page has been tagged as citation needed. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG. Multiple sources about Corbat specifically, not just Citigroup in general, including WSJ, Reuters, CNBC, NY Times (Dealbook) and Business Insider. This makes sense, since he's the CEO of such a large company. I was expecting to need to demonstrate notability by patching together isolated mentions in various articles about Citigroup, but with so many dedicated articles on Corbat himself, I see no reason to delete. I genuinely don't understand the complaint that the references only include " information about the guy". What else do you want them to include? MarginalCost (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might be interpreting it wrong. I thought that he needs to have done something to be notable, not just hold position. Also, many of the content on his life and career sections have {{citation needed}} tagged. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article can pass using either the biography-specific guidelines you linked to, or using the General notability guidelines, which is specifically mentioned in the sentence right before the section you linked to, and this subject passes the GNG easily.
I also agree with Icewhiz below that the article's tone is not overly promotional (certainly not enough to merit the 8 separate cleanup tags currently on it). Yes, it lists his various responsibilities through his career, but does so in a fairly boring and neutrally-worded way for the most part.
There are two "citation needed" tags in the article, only the second of which is of any real import. (There were three at the time of your nomination, but I referenced one of them at the time of my original !vote). They do not change the core notability of the subject, and the article would still stand on its own perfectly fine if the sentences were removed. Deletion is not cleanup. MarginalCost (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I've removed the uncited claim about social clubs, and also removed the cleanup notices. See the talk page discussion to discuss these specific cleanup concerns, keep notability discussion at this AFD. MarginalCost (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think that looks good. Initially the article seem to be original research with the 3 citation needed tags. Really 3? I thought there was more. And I might have misunderstood notability to think that the person have to be notable on his own right and not for his position.
Another concern is that one of the editors have disclosed their connection with the subject and no doubt is paid for that. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does have to be notable in his own right; notability is not inherited. What I and the other keep voters are saying is that the multiple reliable and independent sources which give significant coverage to the subject are evidence of that notability per the general notability guidelines. No one is saying that all CEO's are notable. Now if you're concerned about the conflict of interest editing, find the offending portions and remove them or ask for a source. But given the state of sourcing and lack of overly promotional phrasing, deletion isn't the appropriate remedy. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He may be notable, but at the moment it reads like a CV published by the company he works for. If it can't be made less promotional, I will vote to delete and start again from scratch. There's probably a COI somewhere in the history, if not more than one. Deb (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The CEO of Citigroup, a 168 Billion dollar market cap company, clearly meets GNG as evident in a BEFORE. Article ins't overly promotional - some bits and ends could use cleanup, but it is not too bad.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here because of the college football reference. Just based on that, he would likely not be notable--but why check? The CEO of Citgroup generates enough press to surpass WP:GNG and is worthy of inclusion. The college football information is a good entry into the article of an already well-established notable individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greymen: A Contactee's Tale[edit]

Greymen: A Contactee's Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet to be released film that fails WP:NFF and WP:NFILM. Filming will not begin until July, so the article fails WP:NFF by default, and the film itself has yet to be released or generate any coverage, so WP:NFILM and GNG are failed as well. My attempt [16] to move the article to the draftspace for incubation was reverted by the article creator, so deletion through AfD is the only option. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON as film is not notable yet as it needs significant coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. You can request userfication at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukinebo Dare[edit]

Ukinebo Dare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO Mahveotm (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Unelected officers in a state needs to pass the general notability criteria, this is not even a commissioner, but an assistant to the governor which is always not uniform across states. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the concerns raised about the article, I want to request that the article be moved to the draftspace so that it can be improved before publishing. Preciousayara (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi preciousayara, I don't want you to get discouraged by this nomination because I think you're doing a great job, especially on Niger Delta articles. Just a little more explanation, according to WP:POLITICIAN government appointees at federal and state level are mostly considered notable. This includes federal and state chief justice and other main statewide and federal offices. If this was a commissioner, I might have voted keep, even with minimal coverage. Unlike commissioners, governors are at liberty to create and uncreate special advisers and assistants without getting consent from the legislature. Another issue is the replication and clash of power, for example the special adviser to the governor on sports is still answerable to the sport commission, which is supervised by the commissioner for sports. At federal level, all special advisers usaully pass GNG, so there is usually no need for WP:NPOLITICIAN. Again her office is not one that will stand the test of time if another government comes on board, besides if we set the precedence of allowing assistants/advisers to state governors based on SNG, not GNG, Wikipedia will be filled with so many under referenced and unnotable individuals. The above is my interpretation, so i can understand others disagree. What you can do now is to look for more significant coverage on her or her impact as SSA, then maybe she may pass GNG, but presently am not seeing that.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Lands[edit]

Outer Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems not the be a widespread term. Other than one book, I don't see any other sources using this term. IMO, to be encyclopedic, it would have to be a common classification used by multiple sources. Given that we already have articles on the individual islands, I don't see any need to group them together like this.

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of Islands in the Outer Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a use of Outer Lands ("Block Island is part of the Outer Lands region, a coastal archipelago,...") Less helpfully, this appears to be only a blog. This page also refers to the Outer Lands. I think this is enough to show that the Outer Lands name is used by a wider group than the book's author. I added the book as a reference to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean, those are all really weak sources. The first one might be consider along the lines of a blog too. The only reliable source is the book.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: As neologism at best, per WP:NEO. Like the nom, I agree that there's no sign that this is a widespread term used in reliable sources, and I want more than a single author's neologism for it. Two or three blogsites don't cut it; show me strong cites from the likes of the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, New York Times and the like. The same applies to the notion that this is a notable geographical topic, as Pharos believes: if that's the case, then where are the sources discussing it, and do they do so using this name? Ravenswing 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All references I can find seem to stem from a single book. Maybe the book deserves an article, but this term doesn't. --Calton | Talk 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name is not a very common one, but the geographic topic is notable. It's not about the name, which is in use but not popular. It's the archipelagic region of the Atlantic coastal plain and terminal moraine itself that is notable, and it is referred to in a number of geographical and natural history contexts. I started this article 12 years ago, and I think it does bear improving with more sources, but I think it is worth salvaging.--Pharos (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the topic is notable, where are the sources that talk about it? If the name is "not a very common one", why is it being used instead of a common one, as the claim that topic is notable implies exists? --Calton | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not finding much in the literature that discusses these islands and the cape as a grouping, historically or culturally, other than the Sterling source. There is some geological discussion of the region as a whole, though the islands and the cape were formed by different terminal moraines at different times. The best: [17], [18]. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND, although sourcing is not great. However, I don't see Wiki materially improved as the result of a deletion here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ... the text of which is "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." (emphasis mine) This would suggest the article fails WP:GEOLAND. Ravenswing 04:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've done the same as Calton. The only reference I've found to the name references that one book discussed in the article. SportingFlyer talk 08:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outer Lands, in green
  • Keep, it's a geology thing, of terminal moraines (sp?) from glaciers. It is useful to understand that Long Island through Cape Cod are formed the same way. I don't know how else to refer to these. It would be okay to move/rename to a different technical name if there was a different term from the geology literature, or some "common name", but that would be for discussion at the article's Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that name these particular islands apart from the Sterling book? If they are notable as a group in geologic sources, we should rename the page to the name given by those sources. I'm a firm delete since the only available source is that one book. It's also interesting Cape Cod is included, since it's only technically an "island" due to the building of a canal, which suggests to me there's something odd going on with this particular definition. SportingFlyer talk 06:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Continuing from my comment/vote ("Keep") before. It's a geology thing. It was covered in high school earth science class I think. I don't know, many years later, what the high school textbook was. I am not sure that "Outer Lands" term was used, but I don't recall a different one, and the concept was clear that these islands and peninsula (Cape Cod) were formed the same way, and that was a bit of an "Aha" moment making sense of the world. It is amazing how short is the time since glaciers were hypothesized to have carved their ways in the Alps and brought otherwise inexplicable huge boulders to rest in strange places. And it has been a nanosecond since plate tectonics was conceived of. --Doncram (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come now, Doncram. You're not at all a Wikipedia rookie. You know that the only way an article can be sustained on a subject is by producing multiple reliable sources giving that subject "significant coverage." You know that "I read it in some high school textbook years ago" does not remotely cut it as an answer; those sources cannot be merely alleged to exist, but must be proven to exist, and in nearly two weeks now no one's managed to do so. If you did read about the concept of a terminal moraine, by contrast ... there already is a Wikipedia article on the subject. Ravenswing 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so about "the only way"; there are lots of topics which are presumed notable, sometimes implicitly on basis that off-line sources must exist, including any populated place and any secondary school (although disputed). I am not checking whether Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) has already been argued about above or not.
  • Note that there is no way the article should be outright deleted, because Terminal moraine#Examples could serve as a redirect target as a decent alternative to deletion, which we should always strive for. Ravenswing pointed to that article, and it does already mention the Outer Lands. I still prefer "Keep" however as this is a pretty major geological feature, vastly larger than numerous small landforms we accept under geo notability grounds. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect, the information about outerlands in that article is unsourced too.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the past week or so, I have added many new sources that talk about the reality of this major geographical feature, and also several alternative terms that have been used in various sources. The question of notability is about the geographical feature itself (which has been demonstrated), not about the popularity of a particular name for it.--Pharos (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ehrmantraut[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mike Ehrmantraut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deleted through AfD 3 months ago. This article suffers from the same issue... not a single shred of real-world significance of the CHARACTER. The only real-world significance is of the show, individual episodes, and the actor's performance of the character. Onel5969 TT me 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Yes, the article needs improvement, but the character is notable, and the article should be kept, based on notability. Deletion is not a valid answer. He was a major character in BB and still is in BCS, two critically acclaimed shows. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was Speedy keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that Jonathan Banks' portrayal of the character has garnered notable awards and/or nominations warrants a standalone article for it. A BB/BCS editor should cite particular episodes to add credence, where possible. — Wyliepedia @ 04:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Fine Art[edit]

Eden Fine Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shamelessly promotional, and sourced to press releases and artsy, a notoriously unreliable source.

  • [19] is an interview with uncredited artsy staff with one of their advertisers. It's a "case study" in disguise, not independent reporting.
  • [20] is a commercial listing
  • [21] is press release, republished by a real-estate magazine
  • [22] co-star is a real-estate news site, the article a regurgitated press release (the same quote appears in multiple sources)
  • [23] The standard writes "Eden Fine Art, which has exhibited works by such leading lights as Andy Warhol and Dorit Levinstein". OK, that made me laugh. Dorit Levinstein is not quite on par with Andy Warhol. Anyway, Eden doesn't represent the estate of Andy Warhol. They may have bought something at auction and resold it.
  • [24] the culture trip is user-contributed content, not a reliable source
  • [25] cls is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures
  • [26] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [27] prnewswire dissemniates press releases
  • [28] is paid content
  • [29] not sure what to make of this. kulturehub has never been used as a source for any wikipedia article. the article is a description of a birthday party/reception with media provided by the subject. Doubt that this is independent reporting.
  • [30] amp3pr is a PR agency
  • [31] more birthday news, undated and uncredited, this time with "exclusive photos we snapped at the Alec Monopoly exhibition", and featuring a youtube video uploaded by Eden. Doubt that this is independent reporting. Those "exclusive photos" photos have exif tags that shows they were made years before the birtday party took place.
  • [32] doesn't mention the subject other than that "Alec Monopoly is flying across the world with Eden Fine Art to tag the French Alps"
  • [33] is an online magazine that publishes event announcements. Eden gets a mention as his gallery, but nothing more.
  • [34] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [35] bellesdemeures is a website that advertises luxury homes
  • [36] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [37] is a "luxury magazine" that republishes press releases
  • [38] is the blog of a hotel
  • [39] artsy is not a reliable source

Vexations (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • artsy, a notoriously unreliable source

    You're referring its listing content, yes? Not editorial? I don't see any threads at RSN czar 23:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Artsy has a mix of content. Their magazine has articles that have a byline and are clearly identified as editorial (their URL starts with https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial. That's not a problem. The bit that affects us most, I think is the artists section, https://www.artsy.net/artists which is designed to look neural and independent, but is really a platform for galleries to sell works. As https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships helpfully explains: Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thx just wanted to confirm czar 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly created for promotional reasons. If the topic is notable, someone else will write objectively about it sooner or later. Deb (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Vexation's analysis, but I also want to put a stake in the ground that I think this effort to purge galleries under NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq is a perfect example of this. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Ternyik[edit]

Wilbur Ternyik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small town mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Florence OR is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate that Wilbur Ternyik should be considered a special case over and above most other mayors of most other places this size. Every mayor who exists at all could always show two obituaries and an exit interview in the local media, so that's not enough coverage in and of itself to make a smalltown mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've begun to add content and citations supporting his notability with his role in the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, which led to legislation protecting the entire Oregon Coast. More sources are available off-line, but IRL I haven't time this week to get to the library. Others may be able to help this week? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to be able to source that work to media coverage, not to the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission's own self-published content about itself, before it counted as a notability booster. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been linked at the Talk page of WikiProject Oregon. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above and per nom. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 21:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added to the content of the article. I agree Ternyk does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, but I believe the added sources support WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage is all to local and often not indepdent of Ternyik at all. Nothing adds to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: !Voters should take note of the continuing expansion of the article, incorporating more sources. Early participants in this discussion seem to have mistakenly concluded that Ternyik's status as mayor was intended as a component of the claim for notability. His significance lies primarily in his leadership in coastal planning, which influenced Oregon's landmark land use legislation; his influence extended beyond Oregon's borders as well. The "local sources" argument advanced above is not based in any Wikipedia policy; if a source is reliable, it can contribute to notability. Regardless, the sources go well beyond merely "local." The Register-Guard is one of the premier papers in the state (consult the Wikipedia article linked), and contains a more in-depth writeup than those currently cited in the article. The Oregonian was up until very recently the most widely-circulated paper in the Pacific Northwest. Ternyik is also present in a variety of scholarly articles and a few books. Before nominating an article for deletion, it's worthwhile to conduct some basic searches and check in with the primary authors. -Pete Forsyth (talk)

The only Oregonian source in the article is his obituary which wasn't even written by a staff member, so it's not independent of the subject. SportingFlyer talk 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to do your own research; adding sources to the article takes time. Some Oregonian dates to consider: March 22, 1959; October 25, 1968 (passing mention, supporter of Wayne Morse re-election); September 19, 1971; January 19, 1972; April 19, 1975; February 23, 1980; March 22, 1986; etc. etc. There are about 30 hits in the Oregonian on a basic Newsbank search. However, as I argued above, this is hardly necessary when there are multiple mentions in local papers, the Register Guard, scholarly references, book mentions, etc. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC) (Sorry if that was a bit testy -- I do agree that an obituary is not the best source. But much better sources are not at all hard to find, many have been added to the article since the AFD started already, but that point remains unacknowledged. Anyway, I'll get back to building the article. There are plenty of other excellent source materials to incorporate, and I think my time is better spent on that than on this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Keep - but it needs to have a clearly stated connection between his coastal land use advocacy and the larger context state-wide and beyond. YBG (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he easily meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline notable at best and highly promotional. All the arguments above trying to show how important he is are really showing how much publicity he has managed to acquire for his local activities. Ths is at attempt to bring his local publicity to a wider audience, but wp should not be doing that. There's no indication of the necessary broader influencew to support it. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need to modify this, after re-reading Pete Forsyth's comments..
  • Draftify for improvements Probably borderline notability, and the article has an effect of being promotional. It reads like an attempt to bring his local publicity to a wider audience. Unfortunately , the prevalence of promotional writing in local politics articles (and in other areas in WP), can lead to articles unintentionally following that style. We have to judge the article, not the intent, in determining whether to keep it, but recognizing the intent can lead to a different solution--purely promotional writing from a promotional intent should be deleted, not fixed, as the only way to discourage promotionalism ; accidentally or mistakenly promotional writing needs to be fixed, and the availability of draft space provides a place for fixing it in those cases where it cannot be done immediately. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to DGG's comment above: I generally take these comments as healthy criticism of an imperfect and growing article. Grand'mere Eugene (mostly) and I (to a lesser extent) have continued to improve the article and introduce new source materials. Constructive feedback is very welcome, though I don't think in this case it justifies deletion. For my !vote:

Keep: Ternyik has been the central subject of articles in the Register-Guard, the Oregonian, Oregon Coast Magazine, The Daily Astorian, and a number of more local papers. These articles span both policy-focused articles centering on his work, and personality/feature style articles. Dozens of other articles treat his work as a significant component, if not their central concern. Books and academic publications have noted his work as well. I realize that Wikipedia editors may have difficulty evaluating many of these articles, as they are not available on the open web; but libraries and newspaper archiving services do contain them, so they amply meet the requirements of WP:V. The notion that "local" papers do not count toward notability is not captured in Wikipedia policy; but even so, it would be inaccurate to describe the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, the Capital Journal (aka Statesman Journal), or the Daily Astorian as "merely local." These are all longstanding papers with readership and coverage well beyond their own municipalities, and the first two have won significant awards.

I encourage fellow editors to consult the Wikipedia article (a longtime GA) on The Register-Guard, which has won multiple regional and statewide awards, was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, was one of only four papers nationally to take a stand against actions of the McCarthy committee in the 1950s, and has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service. Though this paper happens to cover the county Ternyik lived in, it is no mere local paper. Like the better-known Oregonian, it has covered Ternyik on a number of occasions, but the 2006 news article "For years, Wilbur Ternyik has been a powerful advocate for the Oregon Coast" appears to be the most comprehensive profile published, and provides a thorough overview of his career. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to email the text of this article.

I appreciate the feedback that has come in this discussion, though much of it might have been more helpful as commentary on the talk page. I believe the article has improved substantially during the AfD period based on the concerns raised. (Expanding number and quality of sources, stating core of notability claim more clearly, and including a bit of commentary critical of Ternyik's approach.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Setna[edit]

Renu Setna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The page needs WP:Cleanup, but the subject is known for roles in three separately notable films, and passes WP:NACTOR. See their IMDb page for relevent films. --HunterM267 talk 21:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot is based on sources that are just listings, and the rest is mostly original synthesis. Lack of important third party, reliable sources on the subject. The use of many references looks like masking. ———Chalk19 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR he did not play a significant role to pass NACTOR and his role was marginal both in Bridget Jones's Diary (film) as per this and this and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although not known for playing major parts, he is very recognisable to British viewers due to his roles in popular TV programmes such as It Ain't Half Hot Mum and In Sickness and in Health as well as other TV shows and films. This is due the paucity of Asian actors for many decades (until maybe the 1990s), and he therefore appeared disproportionately in many productions playing Asian roles from the 1960s to 1980s (you see can that in IMDb). As a result, he is frequently mentioned in books and articles about Asians in British television and films - [40][41][42][43] (and should remain so in the future). He therefore qualifies under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers[edit]

Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Economist and academic that falls a little short of our general notability criteria or the notability requirements for academics. The three references provided are her personal web page at TIAS School for Business and Society where she works (useful but not independent of the subject), her LinkedIn page (not as useful and still not independent of the subject) and her PhD thesis (pretty much useless). Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, a single article with 280 cites over more than a decade, with the next highest citation count in the teens, does not appear to meet notability criteria, and nothing else in the article signifies any of the other qualities of NSCHOLAR have been met. And other than mere mentions, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I’m sorry but an article as recently as of November 2017 in the New York Times as shown here [46]. With additional news coverage from other Third party – Reliable sources as recently as of April 2018, as shown here, [47] makes me ask, “What is necessary, from your standards, to meet the threshold? Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 13:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That NY TImes article does not constitute significant coverage. Lückerath-Rovers is quoted in the last two paragraphs, that's it. Pichpich (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Again, and I know I am been thick headed here, but what constitutes “Significant” coverage? For me personally, if I am covered by the New York Times – BNR Newsradio and Het Financieele Dagblad I want a page here too . ShoesssS Talk 17:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Clearly that's not the case. In that NYT article, the main topic is clearly Beatrix Ruf and you could us it as a source in the article on Ruf. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Wawira[edit]

Christine Wawira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual fails notability criteria for WP:ACTOR. All acting roles have been insignificant or in non-notable short films. Any coverage appears to be personal anecdote and promotional. When their most recent listed film role is "Victim #1", a clear case of WP:TOOSOON is indicated. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not sure I have ever seen someone who fails notability so absolutely fully.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article needs to be updated with more recent info. Clearly the article needs clean up. Sone of the movies written on the filmography section are not notable 197.237.54.31 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — 197.237.54.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have reverted your additions in the article that linked film names to other incorrect film pages. Please do not introduce deliberate errors. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Gill[edit]

Asha Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced article, WP:PROMO, no mention of this person at all in a news search.[48]

Massive WP:COPYVIO of her booking agent.[49] Minor TV role doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. I can't see what there is to salvage here. — JFG talk 17:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G12. The majority of the article is copied and pasted from the nominator's link. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Considering the article history, it's more likely that the London Speaker Bureau page linked from the nomination copied the contents of the article. The person still isn't notable, and the article is original research. Newslinger (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I wish I'd seen this beforehand! The Wikipedia article (which I wrote) predates the London Speaker Bureau page by a number of years (so if anything the London Speaker Bureau copied Wikipedia!) She was more notable in Asia from about 2000-2013, including being a major VJ at Channel V and a cohost of Lonely Planet Six Degrees. - Creatrixtiara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.5.232 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Author blanked article, G7. - TNT 💖 20:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pema Browne[edit]

Pema Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist/publisher lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. A google search fail to provide any info of substance. reddogsix (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The O.C. characters. SoWhy 10:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Harper[edit]

Johnny Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for redirect to the List of The O.C. characters because it appears to be Fancruft and lacks secondary sources Shaneymike (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect – Great call. However, you did not have to bring it to AFD to do a Merge/Redirect. You could have placed this thought process on the articles Talk Page and after a week or two, and no one objects, go ahead and make the Merge/Redirect. Just some insight for future situations. Now that process has started on the AFD, let it go through, and if the consensus is to Merge/Redirect and you would like to do it…..I’ll give you a hand. ShoesssS Talk 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The O.C. characters. SoWhy 10:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Cooper[edit]

Kaitlin Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for redirect to the List of The O.C. characters because it appears to be Fancruft and lacks secondary sources Shaneymike (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the List of The O.C. characters; if you wanted this to be redirected, then you could have done it yourself. AfDs are typically forums in which the nominator wants the article deleted, full stop period. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but I echo Aoba47's comments. Alternatively, find and add sources and we can keep the article. Although not with some of the excesses I just removed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've taken the initiative and redirected a lot of the other character articles to the list after reading Aoba47's comment with regards to a One Tree Hill article that I nominated last month as well as another user's comment with regards to my nomination of the Johnny Harper article. Sorry, if this seems excessive with regards to these types of articles. I just figured that was playing it safe rather than arbitrarily redirecting.Shaneymike (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand your point; I do the same thing tbh. It is a good idea to play it safe. An AfD consensus also discourages users from reverting redirects (which I have noticed more often occurring when I just do it on my own accord). Aoba47 (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. Thank you for the response. I have always been curious about how to handle situations where redirects are reverted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If It Were You, We'd Never Leave[edit]

If It Were You, We'd Never Leave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not be notable due to the lack of significant coverage. This discussion might be relevant - Talk:If It Were You, We'd Never Leave#Notability. Several editors argued this album may not be notable despite the charts and sources such as Complex, Dancing Astronaut, In the Mix and Consequence of Sound. Brought here to clear the cloud. The editor whose username is Z0 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) - Edit: As nominator, I vote to Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]. The charts help pass the subject-specific guideline (WP:NMUSIC) and the coverage satisfies the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Merging isn't the best option since material from the album article wouldn't be suitable for the artist article. The editor whose username is Z0 18:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the combination of sourcing and charting is enough to meet the WP:GNG.
  1. Detailed article from Complex
  2. Dedicated review by Consequence of Sound
  3. Detailed article by Dancing Astronaut. (I'm not familiar with the website, but their About Us page looks like they're a legit company with owners, editorial staff, and dedicated writers at least.)
  4. He was interviewed about the album from Vibe.
  5. It charted in the top 20 of the Billboard Electonic albums chart.
Its by no means a slam dunk, but I think it's enough to scrape by and write a decent stub/start class article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Andrew Bayer. Insufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two album reviews (none by mainstream publications), one pre-release hype train article, and relatively little coverage in the Vibe interview (mere mention of the album in one of nine questions, and the question isn't even targeted at the album). Album was out since 2013 but merely charted in the United States on two rather insignificant component charts. The part where he talked about his sound and inspirations can be merged into the artist's primary article. Hayman30 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhh I don't know about some of that spin. Consequence of Sound is one of the reviews, and that's a pretty mainstream publication, unless you consider topic of "music" to be "niche" (I sure hope not). Between its article at its its About Us page, you can see its a decade+ spanning music website, and is considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. To call the charting insignificant is a stretch too, considering the Electronic/Dance one falls on WP:GOODCHART/WP:USCHARTS as one of the primary/always applicable ones. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, as it seems you probably didn’t read the link in the nom, the AFD nomination was recommended because there was a dispute over whether or not the “notability” concern tag belonged in the article. AFD is a legit way to settle such a dispute. But otherwise, yes, as you say, it is a notable subject. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The album is not close to being strongly notable, but that is not the Wikipedia requirement. There are a few reputable news sources that cover the album, and it charted on a nationally notable chart, which is sufficient to be adequately notable. Not all albums have to be successful on the main sales chart. Genre albums may not have cross-genre appeal. When I developed articles for Doors and Windows, it charted on the Bluegrass chart and not the did not even hit the sales chart. So what, it was a bluegrass album, and it charted in its chosen genre, which is a success. If It Were You, We'd Never Leave is an EDM-style album and has charted in the dance/electronic charts. That means it hit its intended target. Wikipedia was never meant to only define and describe only the popular subjects. That is why they set up rules of what is considered notable, and the creator of the album article has done enough research to dig up enough proof to just clear the bar. Now another editor wants to raise the bar and ask the article to jump higher, but that is not the requirement for including a challenge label of possible failed notability. It would be incorrect to note that the article may not meet the notability guideline. Wikipedia has developed a quality scale to encourage articles to be improved, and that is the tool that I think Hayman30 should be wielding, not the purge/merge/keep sword. Overall the article has barely enough notability to remain, and barely enough quality to be useful, more than a stub, but an actual starter article. I recommend keeping the article. Mburrell (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, only reliable sources I could find are the ones stated by the nominee above and Serge, which isn't a large number. It could be used to expand the page, but only to a small degree. Still better than nothing. aNode (discuss) 05:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered in multiple reliable sources and has notable chart positions. Passes WP:NALBUM, however could be expanded. Lazz_R 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Sustainable Development[edit]

European Journal of Sustainable Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this on behalf of Randykitty (talk · contribs), who WP:PRODed this with the rationale: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

While I agree that on its face value, this seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, there was a lot of (possibly unreliable) evidence for notability through indexing when I reviewed the draft and moved it to mainspace. Putting this through AFD so this evidence can now be evaluated in greater details. For now I'm myself neutral on deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prime evidence of notability I have is that the journal has a (seemingly) decent h-index in the field of sustainable development, ranking at #9. While I don't really trust Index Copernicus, they listed the journal as being indexed in a a lot more than just the four database mentioned in the article, although the site has now been updated and lists "Worldcat, EBSCO, ISI Web of Science (WoS), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA, Proquest), ZBD, Ulrich's periodicals, AGRO, Google Scholar". Index Copernicus isn't something I consider a reliable source, but the claims merit investigation.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IC is indeed not reliable at all (Jeffrey Beall had it on his list of fake indexing services and as far as I know, publishers can put any info they want in it). For example, it is misleading to say that this is indexed in WoS, which almost everybody interprets as the Science Citation Index, because this is only in ESCI, not very selective at all (it even contains some predatory journals). None of the databases listed above is even remotely selective in the sense of NJournals. Not sure whether the nom counts as a !vote for me, but in case it doesn't, my !vote obviously is "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing mention in selective indexing services is already a big red flag. I'd usually want to see a bit more substance in reporting on the journal too beyond it simply existing to satisfy WP:NJOURNAL. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is more or less purely a database entry now, with no in-depth content, and no evidence that such content can be sourced. We don't have the multiple in-depth independent sources required by WP:GNG, and the only attempt at a claim on WP:NJournals is the indexing which as already argued above is not selective enough to count. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Sheetal[edit]

Ann Sheetal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography which doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Deluxe[edit]

Raw Deluxe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article would appear to fail our notability guidelines for music. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. There don't appear to be any major sources about this band apart from local press in San Francisco (XLR8R is a San Francisco-based publication). The Billboard reference is a red herring, added by another editor to prove (unnecessarily) that the band have never charted. The article creator was a SPA back in 2006 by the name of "Kungfuchris", which according to Discogs is also the nickname of the band's bass player Chris Arenas [58] – it seems likely that Arenas created both articles as self-promotion. The other references are nothing to do with Raw Deluxe, but promotion for Arenas' side project New Libation Orchestra. There's a blog post which seems to indicate that Arenas moved back to New Orleans in 2012 [59] to focus on the Orchestra full-time. I can't find any indication that Raw Deluxe has played live at all in the last few years, and they may well have split up some time ago – Mic Blake (Michael M Blake)'s recent social media posts focus entirely on his singing with Alphabet Soup, Vinyl and Marcus Cohen & the Congress, no mention of Raw Deluxe for years. Even if the group is still active, it's clear they've never achieved any major recognition outside of their home town. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Coast Daily[edit]

Space Coast Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proportionally small local news website and magazine. No indication of notability. Does not pass the notability guideline for companies and organisations. I have checked Google, this was almost pointless because it just gives articles by Space Coast Daily, and once those are filtered out, it gives articles containing "according to Space Coast Daily person..." or similar. I can't find it in Chronicling America. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South African Under-19 cricket team in England in 2018[edit]

South African Under-19 cricket team in England in 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

U-19s are not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Dawson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Katie Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This previously passed an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Dawson, in 2007: it hasn't been edited much since and inclusion standards have tightened since then. Ms Dawson is a local councillor, insufficient notability under WP:NPOL. The citations given are mostly routine local newspaper coverage and do not satisfy WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's standards for the notability of local politicians have been tightened up considerably since 2007 — it's now much more well-established that while members of the citywide London Assembly are accepted as notable, members of London's individual borough councils are not. But there's no other claim of notability for other reasons being shown here, and not nearly enough substantive media coverage to make her a special case on pure WP:GNG grounds — apart from a single article in a national newspaper which glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of being fundamentally about someone else, the other references here are the primary source website of her own political party and a handful of purely routine coverage in the borough's local pennysavers. This is not enough coverage to get a not inherently notable local politician over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Madhyamgram#Education. SoWhy 10:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Bank Edu-Care High School[edit]

Rose Bank Edu-Care High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This school has absolutely no reliable secondary coverage by independent sources. The school however is verified to exist (atleast) according to this which I unearthed after lots of searching.  — FR + 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Madhyamgram#Education as there is nothing to write about this school besides that it is listed in ICSE and that it is in this district. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All high schools are notable, and references probably exist that would allow the article to be expanded, as is the case for almost all high schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not as it stands. Right now it's just a one-line stub that can be easily integrated into the education section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that no other independent reliable sources can be found, given that most of the major dailies of the region are present online. — FR + 11:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
....But lack of sources is a valid reason for deletion — FR + 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Crappy state" is not a valid deletion rationale and there is none other given with one editor pledging to clean it up. SoWhy 10:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Confucians[edit]

Boston Confucians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This "Boston Confucians" article (judging from its content, and common conventions) should have been named "Boston Confucianism", instead of "Boston Confucians".
- But the incorrect naming is not why this AfD was created.

The content is in a rather crappy state, and has been for years. .
- Much of the crappy editing looks to have been undertaken by one single person (User:"Bohemiotx" = User:"Joffre D. Meyer", acc. to this .

Notability of the topic is somewhat questionable, but if it is deemed passing the notability criteria (i.e. first basic requirement for keeping it), then: Someone, who holds both the interest and the competency on the topic, is needed to rectify and improve the article. - Such seem extremely implausible, hence this AfD. (Note: It looks like there may only ever have been on single person behind this 15 years old article's creation and edits).

Other Info: Some basic understanding on the topic/article, can be found via:

Ref.1: 1'st paragraph, from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/43912/summary:
>>At an international conference in 1991, people began to refer to Robert Neville and his colleagues as "Boston Confucians." At first the phrase was used as affectionate teasing and tongue-in-cheek self-description. However, Neville reports that, by the end of the conference, the phrase "Boston Confucianism" had come to be used as a semi-serious label for a particular view: the position that "Confucianism is not limited to East Asian ethnic application" and that it "has something genuinely interesting and helpful to bring to contemporary philosophical discussions" (p. 1). Neville's book, Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World, is a defense of these claims.<<
Ref.2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cummings_Neville#Proponent_of_Confucianism
Ref.3: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Boston-Confucianism

-- DexterPointy (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoessss: : Simply saying "Rewrite yes", falls a tad short of answering the questioning of Who & When. Would you mind elaborating? -- DexterPointy (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment – I have a copy in my “Sandbox” and will work on as much as life, not getting in the way, permits. Timeframe, give me two weeks to resource and rewrite. In the meantime, lets let the AFD proceed and see the outcome. Regards. ShoesssS Talk 18:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@Shoessss: How is the rewrite coming along? - I've failed to find any copy or draft in your user space. -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify. SoWhy 10:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Heaton[edit]

Josh Heaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (yet to actually play in a fully-professional league; being a squad member is not enough). GiantSnowman 08:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I promoted this from AfC on an incorrect reading of NFOOTBALL. Since he was just signed this month and the season doesn't start for another two months, he obviously can't be a "player who has played" in a professional league, even if he may be a player in a professional league. Chetsford (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:55, 10 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Delete - logically we should be draftifying, send it back to where it was from. It may well turn out to a be a legitimate article under NFOOTBALL in a couple of months, so let's set it up for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That draft is better, I'm not sure the presence of a better draft prohibits returning another article back to one, or (as is a more likely argument) whether it nullifies any argument to preserve the information in an open form for writers to use. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point having two separate drafts on the same topic. Have one and keep the histories intact. GiantSnowman 11:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and histmerge to User:GiantSnowman/Josh Heaton as above Hhkohh (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Dare say Mr Heaton will make his debut soon: he was on the bench for St Mirren on Friday. In the meantime, all those who have content prepared on the subject (me as well, although offline rather than in userspace :-) can add to it. Isn't that what draftspace is for? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify appears to be two drafts on the same subject: the current mainspace article has better formatting and is easier to read, while the draft contains more information. A delete/draftify merge should be in order. SportingFlyer talk 04:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mr Heaton made his St Mirren debut last night, although as the Scottish League Cup isn't a fully professional competition and ther opponents were not from a WP:FPL-listed league, I don't know if that counts towards WP:NFOOTY. Anyway, I've expanded the article, so if it does still get deleted, when it's restored there'll be rather more content than there was before. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't make him notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. I've merged my sandbox into this to maintain the history - happy to draft and wait for the (no doubt inevitable) professional debut... GiantSnowman 07:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soumita Saha[edit]

Soumita Saha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing GNG and BAND. While there are some sources, the majority seem based on PR releases or interviews which lack independence from the subject to verify claims. The media covering her seems somewhat local or blog-type with questions about reliability. No indication of e.g. chart success. 10,000 streams as claimed by one source is not really a lot these days. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP It will take some time before I am able to come up with more reliable sources. She is a popular singer from Kolkata and is well known in India and Bangladesh. In fact, one of her interviews was published by a leading print newspaper of Bangladesh (here is the screenshot), which in itself speaks of popularity and reinforces notability.
She has been extensively covered by several news sources which are part of Google News. Some of those articles date back to 2014. Here is Google News Search Results about her. Those sources can't be rubbished as tabloid or blogs.
She is a noted Rabindra Sangeet Exponent. If you look at Category Rabindra Sangeet exponents, most articles have similar style, references, media coverage. For e.g. Shreya Guhathakurta, June Banerjee, Mankirt Aulakh etc. If Wikipedia can accept those articles, why should we be partial towards this young singer?
Our purpose is to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic. It takes some time and efforts of large number of editors before an article develops fully. If we keep on deleting stub articles like this, we shall end up harming the very purpose of Wikipedia.
Edit 1- Few editors have questioned her passing WP:N. Here is screenshot of Google Autocomplete which simply reinforces the claim that she is notable in Eastern India and Bangladesh.
Edit 2- I just came across a reference about her in Times of India. Here is the web link and print (epaper) link. This article has only a paragraph (titled More Than Face Value) about her but it definitely reinforces the claim that she passes GNG and NSINGER. Quartzd (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Soumita is a famous Rabindra Sangeet Singer. She is immensely popular in West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh. She has been part of so many Bengali TV Shows and enjoys mass popularity and fandom in this region. Therefore I recommend that this article must be kept on Wikipedia Kolkataemedia6 (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)— Kolkataemedia6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - agree with the nominator that none of the refs convey any notability - some are simply quotes from the subject about other people and some are clearly press releases and promotional material. The assertion that similar articles exist is no argument for retention. We certainly would harm Wikipedia if we retained non-notable articles  Velella  Velella Talk   10:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which one do you think is a Press Release or Promotional Material? Even some of the sources used have their own Wikipedia page , for e.g. Sulekha and they are well known in India Quartzd (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • For each individual indicator of reliability, there might be exceptions. But when combined, they speak of a significant level of reliability. I have presented sources which are 1. Part of Google News, 2. Which have Wikipedia pages themselves 3.Clippings of Print Newspapers. Together they speak volumes about the WP:RELIABILITY and WP:N Quartzd (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Soumita is a famous Rabindra Sangeet Singer. She is immensely popular in the country after her international debut Ishq became massive hit in . Ishq released on february 2018. She not only a famous social activist but also a popular poet who dedicated a beautiful poetry to the victim of katua gang rape case. Soumita has always been vocal about wrong doings in the society and women empowerment as well. Therefore I recommend that this article must be kept on Wikipedia Emedia96 (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC) — Emedia96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Soumita Saha is one of the most successful international singer from India. She is a famous social activist who not only campaigns for women empoerment causes but also campaigns for several other causes. During diwali 2017 the young singer took initiative to motivate people to reject chineese lights.It was a famous awareness campaign, which was an unique attempt to revive the traditional art of clay lamps alive. (Here is the link it was covered by a famous daily from bangladesh [ http://thedailynewnation.com/news/151467/soumita-saha-campaigns-against-chinese-lights-and-lamps-this-diwali.html])Therefore I recommend that this article must be kept on Wikipedia Soulcraves (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)— Soulcraves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - largely per nom, individual fails to currently meet the relatively stringent requirements set forth by WP:NSINGER, as there are few/no non-trivial mentions by WP:RS. Saying that a singer is a "famous social activist who is immensely popular in the country is a bold claim, but, must still follow WP:V, which it does not at this time. --HunterM267 talk 16:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Might be a case of sockpuppetery and COI Accesscrawl (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what even is this person. 49.145.246.5 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is primarily about mass perception in the region of influence rather than an absolute crierion. If this were so, less than 10% biographies on WP shall pass GNG test. The sources covering the subject are varied and are largely accepted in this region. 2405:205:A0A1:ED04:3174:7187:9A9A:3BC9 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Note many of the sources in the article are not WP:RS Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Tokov[edit]

Anatoly Tokov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO - no tier one fight at all to merit a stand a lone page in main space. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA and the coverage is routine sports reporting and lists. There is nothing that appears to meet the significant and independent requirements of WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was kept after an AfD somewhat over a year ago. However, since then no independent sources have cropped up. The journal is still not indexed in any selective database. At the previous AfD, several editors !voted "keep" based on a handful of citations to articles that appeared in this journal. Some such citations are to be expected, but to show notability for this journal, many more would be needed (at least several hundred, although that would not be enough to make a single person notable under WP:ACADEMIC, let alone a complete journal). In conclusion, not a single one of the criteria of WP:NJournals are met, nor does this meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I don't dispute the specific facts regarding this journal presented by Randykitty (most notably that this is not a journal indexed in a selective database) and believe this is a GF re-nomination by RK. However, I am somewhat of the mind that the article should be kept on the basis that notable people have published in it, a fact which - while obliviated by WP:INHERITED - would nonetheless help it meet a liberal reading of Criterion 1 of WP:NJournals, namely that "the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". In point of this fact I note that notable people have made the choice to publish in this journal, including Arthur Snell,[1] Benoit Pelletier,[2] Rose-Marie Belle Antoine,[3] Winston Dookeran[4], Richard Bernal[5], and others. It has been referenced in a number of academic texts from Springer Publishing, Routledge, and CRC Press.[6]. (For full disclosure, I was the creator of the article, though I have no COI to declare regarding it, pecuniary or otherwise.) On the other hand, I would lean towards this being right on the edge. I made this early in my WP career and, had I the benefit of experience, I might have invested my energy elsewhere rather than in an article on an unindexed journal. If the decision comes down to delete, I won't be really torn up. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Snell, Arthur. "Conflict in Syria: An Historical Perspective". Caribbean Journal of International Relations and Diplomacy. 4 (1).
  2. ^ Pelltier, Benoit (2016). "The Abolition of Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Canada and the Evolution of the Role of the Supreme Court of Canada". Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy. 4 (1).
  3. ^ Belle Antoine, Rose-Marie (2016). "Guest Editorial". Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy. 4 (1).
  4. ^ Dookeran, Winston (2016). Crisis and Promise in the Caribbean: Politics and Convergence. Routledge. ISBN 9781317157748.
  5. ^ Bernal, Richard (2015). The Influence of Small States on Superpowers: Jamaica and U.S. Foreign Policy. Lexington. ISBN 1498508170.
  6. ^ Paltiel, Jeremy (2015). Facing China as a New Global Superpower. Springer. ISBN 9812878238.Kaczorowska-Ireland, Alina (2014). Kaczorowska-Ireland. Routledge. ISBN 1317654994.Rewizorski, Marek (2015). The European Union and the BRICS. Springer. ISBN 9783319190990.Castro-Rea, Julián (2016). Re-mapping the Americas: Trends in Region-making. Routledge. ISBN 1317066758.Berman, Eva (2015). Public Administration and Policy in the Caribbean. CRC Press. ISBN 1439892989.Putnam, Lara (2017). Caribbean Military Encounters. Springer. ISBN 1137580143.Nelson, Marcel (2015). A History of the FTAA: From Hegemony to Fragmentation in the Americas. Springer. ISBN 1137412755.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is indexed pretty much nowhere. It doesn't even have an ISSN as far as I can tell. Fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 23:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 23:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only independent source, the Palgrave Handbook, gives this only a passing mention. That's not enough for WP:GNG, nor is there any evidence of passing any of the WP:NJournals criteria. In particular Chetsford's list of supposedly-significant publications are mostly or entirely uncited, so I don't find their claim of significance to be credible. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhi Khatun[edit]

Akhi Khatun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This articles don't pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:
  1. Dhaka Tribune - dedicated article on the player

Also seems to be a number of other lengthy sources in non-English language sources already noted in the article, I would want some confirmation these are not sufficient for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:TOOSOON. fails subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:NFOOTBALL which specifically excludes youth football as inherently notable. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and per WP:ANYBIO does not indicate he has made widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of football. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - weak - probably scrapes by on GNG. GiantSnowman 09:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The player has not played for the senior national team, She has just played for the youth national team. A player playing for the senior national team or played in a fully professional league is notable.Not someone who has represented the youth team (FIFA competition etc does not matter). Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why? No senior caps, and no professional caps, and no noteworthy recognized contribution.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fails WP:NFOOTY but passes WP:GNG there is coverage in the Dhaka Tribune like Akhi Khatun: Bangladesh's Maldini in the making and further we have not got into the local Bengali Language media coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how she passes GNG, she is 15 years old, outside of Bangladesh? Inside of Bangladesh? I fail to see significant coverage. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets GNG guidelines. There is no such thing as wider GNG. Someone notable in Norway may not be notable in Mongolia but that is inconsequential.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is notable about the player? I truly don't understand.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- In Bangladesh there aren't many female professionals. So it becomes news in the Bangladesh when one achieves some amounts of success. This leads to more coverage than other countries and that coverage allows her to pass the GNG threshold. I mean Bangladesh just got its first female commercial and first female military pilot a few years ago and both were front page news.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Youth team appearances are not considered notable because many players who play for their youth team do not go on to become professional. It has been well established over many years that youth caps do not confer notability.and this player is yet to play in a fully pro league .so this is simply fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSPORT . No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The Coverage is nothing but WP:ROUTINE. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 10:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macalloy[edit]

Macalloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing independent to show notability KylieTastic (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did not find the sources to be sufficient, e.g. the case study is one short para. This does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I dislike multiple relists but here's hoping for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SpinningSpark. -Henry TALK 04:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nom and K.e.coffman above. The case study provides a description of the company but it is clearly marked as having been sourced from the company website and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. While the name Macalloy is synonymous with a type of steel support, the company itself does not appear to meet the criteria for notability. HighKing++ 10:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IV.AI[edit]

IV.AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill bot creators, PROD removed by SPA who created the article. 2Joules (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notable for being the first AI developer for private industries. Works with Sony, Fox, and other big companies. It's my first article, we all need to start somewhere. Banassac (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see primary sources, promotional material, quotes in other articles, but very little by way of demonstrating notability via WP:NCORP. Basie (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec[edit]

Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that it's non-notable is not a very good point because other small political parties have pages, like the Parti_nul or the Parti_équitable --Di123 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referencing improvement is certainly still needed here, but there are already enough reliable sources present to cover off the basic notability question. The notability test for a political party is not having actually won seats in a legislature, but is passed by any party — major or minor doesn't matter — that is registered with the appropriate electoral registrar and referenceable to something other than purely primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scrapes by WP:NORG for now per sources in article, having only been around for one election cycle. Given their candidates' nonzero showings last election, it's a pretty safe bet that another few profiles this summer and fall will make them unambiguously notable. FourViolas (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emaar South[edit]

Emaar South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emaar Beachfront[edit]

Emaar Beachfront (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ben Phillips Blows Up. SoWhy 10:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Phillips (youtuber)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ben Phillips (youtuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally added a speedy deletion tag but once references were added I decided to remove the tag and take to AfD. Subject doesn't seem to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains(talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom notable, and two times AFd result was delete. Emily Khine (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ben Phillips Blows Up. Phillips himself does not meet WP:GNG. No in depth coverage from an independent reliable source. Millions of social media followers does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage is mostly about his youtube channel, facebook and Comedy Central. This is the 3rd deletion discussion for this subject since April 2017. Is there a way of preventing another page (other than a redirect) being re-created without WP:GNG being met? 8==8 Boneso (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Boneso's suggestion, the citations are mainly WP:TABLOID, which doesn't really help GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Per the reasoning provided, This is a notable topic, but it's current state is not helpful to the project. I am moving this to the draft space. Pinging @DGG:, and @Icewhiz:, there should be no objections if this is moved back to mainspace upon article improvement, loosely defined. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succession of Ali Khamenei[edit]

Succession of Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am renominating this article for discussion. The previous nomination was malformed. The original nomination was...The article is not based on any facts and is pure speculation. I think it should be deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL Goharshady (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I take no position on the merits of the nomination. Courtesy ping Goharshady. - Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as a article about a future election is appropriate, because people being talking about this considerably in advance, so is an article of the succession to a national office in a non-democratic system. It becomes a matter of political concern long before the persona actually leaves office. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the succession of the successor of Khamenei is WP:BALL, the succession of Khamenei, a 78 year old gentleman, is far from BALL turf (unless we view the present supreme leader as immortal?) and is widely discussed. Indeed, the date of said succession is unknown (Khamenei being on of the longest reigning dictators in the region) - it may occur tomorrow - or in another decade or two - however the list of possible candidates for consideration before the Assembly of Experts is indeed known and is quite limited due to various requirements (unless they were to be flexed at the time of election). Possibly one might add an usurpation (democratic or a different type of dictator) to the lists of possibilities. In any event, this is a much discussed succession - [61][62][63][64]. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to draft space, since it is plausible that this can become a reasonable article. The sourcing has to be improved, and the list of possible successors has to be attributed in the text. Also, the title of the article is incorrect, since the succession of Ali Khamenei occurred when he became Supreme Leader. The next Supreme Leader (Khamanei's successor) will then 'succeed' to the position. So the article is about the next leader's succession, not Khamanei's succession. Zerotalk 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Ok I have had a chance to look at this and form some opinions. The subject is probably notable but the article is an unencyclopedic mess. Move it to draft space pending appropriate improvements. In its current state it just doesn't belong in the mainspace. (preceding comment is mine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Good suggestion. I'll modify my vote accordingly. Zerotalk 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The topic seems considerably notable, but the article is confusing, questionably sourced, and of low quality. Draftifying will allow editors to to make it a good article. Henry TALK 15:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Haneda[edit]

Ai Haneda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed ("Best newcomer") are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Luftfall (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Estes Kavanaugh[edit]

Ashley Estes Kavanaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person does not appear to be notable. All she did was serve as personal secretary to a past president, and be a wife to a judge (from where I arrived). In my opinion, the article does not fulfill notability guidelines per WP:NBIO. Luftfall (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. due to no support. Closing as speedy keep.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't mean to go all WP:WAX, but it strikes me of similar importance to Evelyn Lincoln, Grace Tully, etc. The list at the heading Personal secretary to the President shows that most such secretaries have Wikipedia articles. The article should be improved, perhaps; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons previously cited here. I, too, feel that this article ought to be developed, enhanced, and thereby improved - perhaps more on her education, her age, her parents and family, and her role during the War on Terror, etc. MaynardClark (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is now the wife of a US Supreme Court nominee. That is suggestive, but not dispositive—Virginia Thomas and Martin D. Ginsburg have articles; the other spouses of current justices do not as yet. But because this is widely viewed as a highly consequential nomination that will shape the Court for decades, that will be the subject of a confirmation battle, and that will shape the midterm and presidential elections, she is and will likely remain of interest to WP users for decades. Improve, don't delete. Enoent (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personal secretary to the president is a firly important role. Besides, she passes GNG with more to come probably. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – I can understand the nomination on the bases of Notability is not inherited. However in this case, we already have numerous in depth coverage by the mass media (i.e. Secondary – Independent – (what many may call) reliable sources on Mrs. Kavanaugh as an individual, separate from her husband. In addition, this coverage is going to grow on an hourly bases because of the nomination of her husband. This more than meets our standards for a standalone article. ShoesssS Talk 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – It is outrageous to ask for this article to be deleted when Miss Beazley (dog) has a page and nobody requested it to be deleted.173.68.54.189 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)MVictory[reply]
Are we discussing Miss Beazley, Miss Beazley (dog), Dubya's celebrated family dog? MaynardClark (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Ryder[edit]

Max Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The individual award listed ("Best newcomer") is not significant; the other one is scene-related. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletele: for the very reasons mentioned above by the nominator. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Max Ryder's career is not confined to just pornographic films. He has worked as a model, he was featured in a well-followed TV mini-series as well. He was noominated for a great number of awards. As for "Best newcomer" award that he won, it is significant actually. werldwayd (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grabby awards fail PORNBIO requirements on their face; they are not industry awards, as required, but have been handed out by a series of magazines serving a single metro area. Even if there is some smidgen of notability here, the existing text and sourcing read like publicist prose and fall so far below encyclopedic value that WP:TNT would apply. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 10:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ROTH Capital Partners[edit]

ROTH Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria Muffin7Maniac (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Muffin7Maniac (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely meets the criteria for notability according to WP guidelines, the company has extensive mainstream coverage over multiple years, including being featured in a full-length documentary produced by Magnolia pictures.Cypresscross (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has indeed been included in a documentary, but generally one sensational story does not equal notability (see: WP:SIGCOV ). I don’t see evidence of “extensive mainstream coverage over multiple years”; of the listed sources, MSNBC is probably the best, but I hardly think having hip-hop parties makes a financial firm notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The New York Post is regarded as a very questionable source, and the firm has only a passing mention in the New York Times.Muffin7Maniac (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that The China Hustle is a "sensational" story and Roth has never released any statements disputing the report or facts in the documentary or any of the other media articles. The New York Post, as well as all of the media sources used as references, which includes The Globe and Mail, meet the criteria for a reliable source, according to WP guidelines. Cypresscross (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be getting any attention... Pinging recently active editors from the page: Jbhunley, Infochief1, LilHelpa, Yngvadottir, Tom.Reding. Thanks.Muffin7Maniac (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several of the sources in the article are bare mentions but there does seem to be a lot of coverage of the scandal. They are a well known company which actively seeks publicity so they meet Perp#1 of WP:CRIME. The business related sources I find are, so far, press releases but many are other company's press releases. I am not sure of how to score those for notability but, since the meet CRIME there is not really a need to examine them in relation to WP:NORG. They host, what seem to be, several major conferences so there should be some main stream reporting but it may be buried in the 2000+ press releases. Jbh Talk 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for the links. I'm not sure that WP:CRIME applies here. Perp #1 seems to refer to the type of victim, not perpetrator. Not sure the "victim" here was a famous person? Many companies "actively seek out publicity", but that doesn't mean they are notable by Wikipedia's standards- on the contrary, in many cases. I would assume if a company were actively seeking it, it's because they don't have it :) And, in my (albeit limited) experience on Wikipedia, if "good" sources are harder to come by and coverage is inundated with press releases, it's usually a no. You are right though that there is coverage of the scandal. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like that would qualify as significant coverage of the *scandal itself*, not the company/perpetrator, who is simply mentioned in context. Maybe a Merge into The China Hustle would be more appropriate, then?Muffin7Maniac (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a redirect/merge is a bad idea because it makes the only information we have about the scandal. WP:PERP#2 gets them over the notability hump and we can then use lower quality/less independent sources to flesh out the article. I do give some weight to their notability for their conferences being mentioned in other companies' press releases, but that alone nor other coverage I have seen, would let them pass NORG though. I suspect, per NEXIST, that there is some significant coverage of those conferences etc. in acceptable media. I just am uninterested in digging through several thousand results to find those sources. Jbh Talk 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AutoGravity[edit]

AutoGravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP, for example, this piece from forbes.com/sites which is a user submitted area: How Startup AutoGravity Is Doing For Auto Lending What Expedia Did For Travel.

Sources in the article are largely routine notices such as "AutoGravity launches national TV ads" and "VW Credit invests in AutoGravity". Other coverage details the company's hopes and aspirations, such as "Financial Technology Company Aims at Simplifying Financing Process", etc. Does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH; WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the references are public relations submissions, and not sufficiently independent of the subject. I'm unable to find in depth coverage about AutoGravity from reliable sources. The four most comprehensive sources are listed under AutoGravity#Further reading: Finovate is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, Auto Remarketing didn't even bother to update their copyright footer from 2017, VentureBeat has a piece written by an AutoGravity employee, and HuffPost has a third-party contributor article. Newslinger (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Routine press coverage. scope_creep (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A run-of-the-mill business with an effective and busy PR department but I cannot find any intellectually independent references. References fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 10:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tradeshift[edit]

Tradeshift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent advertisement, particularly significant as such right now in advance of an ipo. No references other than routine material on funding, and highly promotional tone throughout. The combination o fvery bborderline notability and clear promotionalism is a sufficient reason for deletion. (I tried rewriting, but there is no sourced material except for the funding, and that does not meet WP:NCORP. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article is poorly written, but sifting thru the usual PR info, one may find multiple coverage at TechCrunch and some pieces of its history are on the Wired: [65]. I also restored a reasonable intro from the history, which was replaces by a cut'n'paste PR-babble, probably by a company's marketroid. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems every one of the TechCrunch items is a mere notice of funding--and such notices do not count for notability , and they are generally simply copies of the press release. The refs might have passed muster before the current version of WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this was newly added, but this one is more than a mere notice of funding. I'm not claiming that this is sufficient for notability, but there's more there than you're seeing. Sancho 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on at least this and this. Could be swayed if these are shown to be non-independent. Sancho 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sanchom: I don't believe these to be suffiently independent; pls see my comment below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sancho \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 07:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Various stuff from Danish media: 1, 2, 3 --Harthacnut (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • More stuff from Danish media: Full hour radio from Danish public broadcaster DR about the company: 4, profile about their development practices: 5
  • Delete: the sourcing offered above does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP, being largely PR driven and focused on company's hopes and aspirations (WP:SPIP). For example:
  • Tradeshift goes social with business apps. With more than 200 developers signed up to develop business apps on its platform, Danish electronic business start-up Tradeshift is looking more like Facebook for business than the simple electronic invoicing service that launched last year [66].
  • Tradeshift Frontiers innovation lab hopes to drive blockchain adoption in the global supply chain [[67].
Emphasis mine. Just promo 'cruft lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. "Hopes to drive" is especially telling; the company has not achieved anything significant just yet and is using Wikipedia for promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an advertisment. I would note that e-invoicing has a history dating back to the 1960s. Any company or technology that has contributed to a major innovation would presumably be documented somewhere other than a press announcement. Here the article says where (the company's founders) created the world's first large scale peer-to-peer infrastructure for e-business called Easytrade. This innovation was nominated for the European eGovernment Awards in 2009. - what innovation? Easytrade? Hmm...EDI goes back to at least the 1960s...and the Easytrade article only says itis based on modern internet technologies. These articles are often orphans or part of a walled garden that link only to other articles affiliated with the company. Most of this article seems to be about Easytrade anyway. — E-business and public sector telecommunications probably is an encyclopedic topic (that we don't have an article about yet). Seraphim System (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are based on company announcements or rely extensively on quotations/interviews. None of the references contain intellectually independent analysis/opinion. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 10:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 20:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Staszek Lems rationale. Per plenty of notable references. The article is poorly written indeed but that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fukuoka Marathon. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 Talk 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1953 Fukuoka marathon[edit]

1953 Fukuoka marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The event is non-notable, and the article only has one source; which is unreliable. In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 17:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps Japanese-language references exist for this event. I am reluctant to delete pre-Internet events purely for lacking good references when good references might be hiding on a reel of microfilmed newspapers somewhere. If the Fukuoka marathon is or was a notable annual event, the 1953 one might be notable on that basis. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the Fukuoka Marathon as a whole is definitely notable, but I don't know whether or not individual years get enough coverage beyond the WP:ROUTINE to make them into anything more than stats dumps. (Also worth noting, in 1953 it was still called the Kanaguri Asahi Marathon). Only source I can find a reference to online is a newspaper article from that year which was included in a book that compiles old news articles. Table of contents online at Japan's National Diet Library [68] - Ctrl+F for 金栗賞朝日マラソン). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Júlio César Alves[edit]

Júlio César Alves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entity, rumoured to have provided steroids. If wikipedia allowed rumours, we would not be wikipedia any more. 2Joules (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources have reported about him internationally for years. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::NO! They have reported a rumor, never confirming anything, and they are not that reliable anyway. 2Joules (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is in-depth investigative journalism, involving undercover interviews, and ARD is the public German broadcaster that already revealed the Russian doping system, leading to the withdrawal of several Olympic medals and the exclusion of the Russian team from the winter Olympics. If you don't know anything about a topic, maybe just leave decisions about it to others? Omikroergosum (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::@[User:Omikroergosum]] The purpose of an AFD is to leave the decision to others. I have nominated the article, it is up to other editors to vote. 2Joules (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you have to spread lies to influence it (sources not reliable, only rumours...) before even trying to communicate with editors who know about the subject? And why have you as a user who started editing just 3 months ago already attracted a sockpuppet investigation, accusations of paid editing, and four denied speedy deletions on your talk page (plus several others in the past)? Omikroergosum (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Omikroergosum Because I nominate promotional and non notable articles for deletion. You should see the new Lambo I just ordered. For every successful AFD WIKIPEDIA pays me $1000. 2Joules (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subject is mentioned in a few secondary sources, but is the primary subject of few / if any, and therefore fails WP:BASIC. Additionally, there is little information available to be able to properly write the article with a WP:NPOV. --HunterM267 talk 17:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Sorry to say, my Spanish is not great. Hence, not a Keep or Delete iVote. However, looking at Google News, here [69], Mr. Alves seems to meet our Notability criteria.ShoesssS Talk 18:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Brazil (eSports)[edit]

Made in Brazil (eSports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • This page should not be deleted, for the reason that this has actually been a very notable team throughout the history of the professional Counter-Strike scene. Despite them not being English-speaking, (not sure why that would be relevant at all, by the way), they were one of the most dominant teams, having been a founding member of G7 Teams, which was a prominent organization leading up to 2009. Though I did not create this page, I do not agree with the basis for the speedy deletion tag. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agreed. mibr is a historic name in CS, among the likes of SK Gaming, NiP, WeMade FOX, and Team 3D. Not to mention the org just picked up arguably the best Global Offensive core of all time. Drwoo217 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, we were indeed having this discussion on the talk page. So, why did you open a new AfD and just copy-paste our comments as the rationale? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting closure: Consensus prior to this improper nomination was to keep this and considering the lack of rationale, this should be an easy keep and close. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_July_10&oldid=1142224174"