Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 July	8 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The take-home lesson here is that the various language wikis each have their own rules and standards. Just because something is acceptable on X language wikipedia, doesn't mean it's acceptable on Y language wikipedia. Nor the other way around. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highschool original graduation songs compilation[edit]

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

Unremarkable album, no in-depth coverage. Article was created by a user who wrote many inappropriate articles which have been deleted or are currently nominated for deletion. Zanhe (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just translating articles already on Chinese Wikipedia. If it should be deleted, how can it exist on Chinese wikipedia? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, not properly sourced, etc. User:It's gonna be awesome, the rules on the various wikis aren't the same. You may well find yourself at ANI, where someone like Zanhe might suggest that you be topic-banned from such creations. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are three citations. It's well-sourced. Also, regardless of the language of Wikipedia, they all share the same rules regarding GNG, etc. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't--I don't know where you get that idea from. And of the three citations, possibly one is possibly acceptable. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know only one of them is possibly acceptable? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think a tracklist on a music website would be a reliable source that adds to notability? I'm not blind. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the number two citation includes a tracklist. Ok, I find the best way to save this article is to expand it.--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand it? You merely added a bunch of extra references that do not even mention the album. -Zanhe (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete on account of subject failing WP:NSONG, WP:NALBUM, and, crime of crimes, WP:GNG.

Response to the argument based on the ostensible plethora of Chinese-language sources: According to WP:RSUE, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones because this project is in English.

Response to the argument based on the same subject found in the Chinese Wikipedia: According to WP:OTHERLANGS, the existence of an article in another-language Wikipedia does not indicate, by itself, that the topic of the article is notable enough for the English-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. That the Taipei Symphony Orchestra used a song from the album doesn't give it inherit notabilty. Blue Riband► 17:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed it, looks like no one did a source review on the 12 listed secondary sources. Are they promotional/insubstantial? Or do they speak in depth about the album? czar 01:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the sources. The majority of them are about an individual song, "Kite", which is included in the album. The song is possibly notable, but the album is not. -Zanhe (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Snowycats (talk) 04:11, 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. czar 01:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Petersen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local television journalist, "sourced" as usual exclusively to his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer rather than to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in independent media sources. As always, this is not how you reference a journalist, local or otherwise, as notable enough for an encyclopedia article: he has to be the subject of coverage in sources that don't sign his paycheque, not just have a profile in his own employer's staff directory, to be considered a notable journalist. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ )

Delete a non-notable TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:GNG. Only significant mentions (e.g. here, here, and here) seem to be about his taking over as Breakfast Television co-host, and they all read as out of a press kit. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 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. czar 01:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ET (programming language)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Maintenance tags for notability and ref improve removed by author with no significant article improvement. No evidence of any notability at all. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does this appear to be non-notable, as far as I can tell it doesn't even exist yet. Look at the source code repo – https://github.com/ET-Lang/ET – it contains no actual implementation of the language, just some design documents and some examples. I think this is just someone's personal project, and they haven't even built it yet, and already they are trying to make a Wikipedia article on it. SJK (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesnt't look notable to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The article can be recreated once the project is completed, released, and successful enough to gain significant coverage in reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 19:33, 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 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan (Farzana Wahid)[edit]

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

Non notable musician with weak sourcing. The original article was deleted but soon after recreated under a different name by the same user. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shayan is good singer and she has popularity in Bangladesh. She has different style to promote song. Maybe source is problem but in Bangladesh several Bengali media published news about her different style work. NishorgaNiloy (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC) — NishorgaNiloy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Prothom Alo article [1] and two articles from The Daily Star [2][3] constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so the topic meets WP:GNG, ... but after attempting to clean up the article, I've concluded it's too much of a train wreck, and WP:TNT applies.

The bulk of an article should be based on independent sources, but this mainly cites two uncritical primary source interviews - Shayan in Shayan's words. Not surprising when one observes that a substantially identical earlier draft states "This Article has been written and published with the consent of Farzana Wahid Shayan." The draft was declined twice at AfC, then cut-and-paste moved to article space by the author. The underlying text is essentially unchanged from the promotional original. Superficially, this version looks more like an encyclopedia article, but that just makes it native advertising instead of plain advertising.

No objection to recreation via a fundamental rewrite based on independent sources and by someone without a conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 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. Sandstein 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Falk[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 19:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Nationalencyklopedin seems to consider him notable enough for an article.[4] --Hegvald (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. Nationalencyklopedin consider him notable enough for his own article [5], and there are multiple significant mentions in WP:RS [6] [7] [8] [9] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjö (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The links above are the first links that had Falk as the main topic. When i re-read WP:Notablity I found it says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So I want to add that I saw plenty of mentions where the main topic is a play or a movie, but where Falk is mentioned prominently.Sjö (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he's included in the major Swedish general encyclopedia (besides Wikipedia), which is a good sign of notability. /Julle (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG and inclusion in 'Nationalencyklopedin.BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely meets GNG with above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:14, 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 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Dolan[edit]

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

Fails notability. Subject has written several books but received no significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 17:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Their strongest claim to fame would seem to be as a TV presenter, but they're failing our notability tests there too. Of course, any coverage in The Daily Prophet or even The Quibbler could change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Quis separabit? 19:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy WP:GNG pass for me. First, her book The Gift was a best seller in the UK [10] [11] ; second, "her last solo TV show – screened on Boxing Day – was beaten only by Match of the Day in the ratings" [12] ; third, although she has not been in the spotlight for some time now, "RS coverage" remains easy to find The Guardian The Times. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Wikipedia page as it stands now looks like a AfD, I glanced at the citations Biwom left and they should be on the page, then lets see where we are. Sgerbic (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Biwom's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the high requirement for coverage of fringe figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 8 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. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark[edit]

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

Already deleted once following a previous AfD, now recreated, without any addition in content that actually justifies notability beyond WP:BIORELATED, which is why the bulk of the article is about his descent and relatives, rather than about him. Constantine ✍ 17:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an adult member of two royal families (one deposed, one extant), he's in line to become head of the Greek Royal Family, and he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated in the article. It's nearly beyond doubt that he'll continue to be the subject of significant coverage in the future. Occasionally notability actually is inherited, at least when it's attached to a royal title. Pburka (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above statement. He is the future head of the deposed Greek royal family and is referenced in reliable sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. There is actually nothing about him in the article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not only did his family reign over Denmark, but it still does. His grandmonther is Princess of Denmark and Margrethe II of Denmark, his grandaunt, is alive and kicking. While it can be argued that he has never legally been a prince of Greece, he definitely is a prince of Denmark. per Willthacheerleader18, He is the future head of the deposed Greek royal family, He will however be heir to the abolished throne, head of the (Former) Royal Family, Royal House, a notable position. I did not vote on the deletion requests for Constantine's younger brothers, but this one is different.Thazinkoko (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 2nd-in-line to be Greek pretender. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as a prominent member of a royal family. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable as the heir to the heir of the defunct Greek throne. Giano (talk) 11:10, 8 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) The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 14:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark[edit]

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

A very clear case of WP:BIORELATED. Nothing he has done is in any way notable other than being the grandson of a king and bearing a title. Previous AfD in 2011 also ended in deletion, not much has changed since. Constantine ✍ 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Sure, you could use the BIORELATED argument, but the article has 8 sources, which is more than enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 344917661X (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but only if one looks at the number and not the quality of the sources, or what it is they reference. Five references out of eight are about his parentage and family, not himself (textbook BIORELATED). Isolated entries in Teen Vogue and ¡Hola! are not the stuff of GNG, either, unless the concept of notability has changed: these are neither reliable sources nor do they provide independent, unbiased coverage of the subject, nor is it over any significant period of time, nor, and let me repeat this, because of anything he has done other than being born and being a member of a royal family. About the only "notable" thing I can see here is his guest appearance in B&B, but that is not a criterion for notability either per WP:ENTERTAINER or any common-sense definition of notability. I doubt this would qualify him for an entry in IMDB, let alone here. Constantine ✍ 18:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as he is a member of the deposed Greek royal family and the extant Danish royal family. He seems notable enough through google searches (written about in Vogue, Vanity Fair, news.com.au, etc.) and got a decent amount of attention for his little stint in acting. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Nothing notable here; just the ordinary skin-deep coverage of members of royal or ex-royal families. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personally, I would delete at once, but under the present guidelines this boy meets all criteria for a page: he has a legitimate title and is related, however tenuously, to almost all the crowned heads of state in history. Something needs to change, at present even the divorced wives of the lowliest of Britain’s peers qualify for a page. One such page uses a source for notability that the subject: “appeared in the Royal Ascot carriage procession.” So until the criteria changes, we have to keep this German (no Greek blood at all) princeling. Giano (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I read things correctly, he is currently 3rd in line to be Pretender to the Greek throne, which I think is enough. When his brother has male triplets, things might change. It's a pity that Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) failed to be adapted, or we would have a clear answer on that point. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors who are interested in this discussion for deletion may also be interested in his brother's. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fact that there are eight sources, so he has received some coverage, and is a member of a royal family. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per Tillerh11. Emily Khine (talk) 07:49, 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. Sandstein 08:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Matys[edit]

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

Apparently promotional article and possible conflict of interest. Similar edit history in the Ukranian version of the article. Jamez42 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(For the sake of clarity, I discovered this discussion from ukwiki Embassy). Roman Matys is known for two things. Firstly, he is a prominent activist for use of Ukrainian language in business, has launched initiatives of nationwide prominence and received coverage in Newsweek, The Ukrainian Week or Foreign Policy, plus multiple Ukrainian-language media. This activity seems to be notable owing to the level of coverage. Secondly, he is a politician holding a regional office in Lviv Oblast which is very well covered in the article, but his letters to the National Bank of Ukraine are probably less notable and less impactful. The Ukrainian article does have some contributions from User:Roman Matys but they are not substantial, with most information on his activism written by neutral users, and most information about his political career is written by Absolutus ca who also wrote the article here and looks somewhat biased on it — NickK (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are some sources on the topic but they are few and far between (and mostly in Ukrainian). If the outcome is to keep the article, the majority of the content within the article needs to be sourced to meet BLP policy, or removed entirely. ToastButterToast (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, serving on the L'viv Oblast council is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL because the oblasts are not equivalent to states or provinces in countries where that level of legislature gets a person over NPOL #1, and nothing else here is a strong enough claim of notability for any other reason to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this. I'm not familiar enough with Ukrainian politics or culture to be a reliable judge of his prominence as an activist, so no prejudice against recreation if somebody can write it much more encyclopedically and source it much better than this, but this as written isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The promotional and self puffery is horrible and it was created by a single purpose account. Nonetheless, he seems to have founded an influential (or at least Newsweek-mentionable) NGO which satisfies WP:GNG. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - poorly sourced, although he might be notable. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep mainstream publications here [13], [14], [15] added as citations. Over and above GNG. Otrantos (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)~~ — Otrantos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- User has been blocked. Newslinger (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage from Newsweek and Kyiv Post is sufficiently significant. However, this article is not written in a neutral tone and needs some serious work to be encyclopedic. Newslinger (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed his gallery of awards from the article. I've also tagged the {{COI}} tag since the uploader of the award images, Absolutus ca (talk · contribs), self-identified as Roman Matys when uploading the images. The uploader is also the article creator, which means that Roman Matys wrote the article on himself. Newslinger (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've warned Absolutus ca (talk · contribs) with {{uw-coi}}, and placed {{COI editnotice}} on the article's talk page. I've also removed the Awards section from the article. Newslinger (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the process of cleaning up the article, correcting the grammar, and removing self-promotion. Newslinger (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the Career section, because it consisted solely of actions attributed to Matys without supporting evidence. Newslinger (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced the Social activities section with an Advocacy section that summarizes the Newsweek article. At this time, I've finished making major edits to the article. Newslinger (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The Foreign Policy article is about the gradual re-introduction of the Ukrainian language in the Ukraine and Matys is name dropped once, as one person among those who support that. The only reliable source with something of substance is the Newsweek article. Creating an article in the basis of one or two sources, which, moreover, contains blatantly promotional verbiage, violates WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kawartha Credit Union[edit]

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

Small credit unions aren't generally notable, and no reliable sources here prove that somehow this one is. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not that small. At this page, the company states it has $1.4 billion (Canadian) in assets. I was able to add a link to a debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario where one elected politician described the history of Kawartha and its predecessor Cangeco (Peterborough) Credit Union. Where money is involved, references generally exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reference in the Ontario Legislature, five different newspapers and magazines have written about it, do the media consider it to be notable. I think we should too. There is no benefit to readers of deleting this. Ground Zero | t 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable financial institution of local significance only, and rather minor at that. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the refs are self-sourced or routine announcements, not up to WP:NCORP standards. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent sources available that describe the work of the bank. The Banner talk 23:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of type, companies are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:CORP just because of the size of their asset base, or because they've gotten mentioned in legislature speeches as an example of a broader topic and not the actual subject under debate in their own right. Too many of the sources here are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, and the ones that are reliable sources are virtually all local coverage in the credit union's local service area, not aiding in getting it over WP:CORPDEPTH as the subject of more than just local coverage. The only thing that speaks to notability here at all is the "25 best small companies to work for" listicle, but one blurb in a listicle is not substantive enough to get a company over CORPDEPTH all by itself as the only evidence of more than local reliable source coverage. So no, none of this is good enough at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 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 delete. Enigma^msg 21:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High Level Military Group[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG.~~ Jamez42 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the HLMG shows up a lot in various sources, including multiple reliable ones. Usually the organisation itself just gets a line or two (it's usually about their report) but sometimes they get significantly more. ~~I need to review the various sources to decide whether I want to put any of them forward as meeting SIGCOV~~ - given that this organisation would be bound by WP:NORG not merely GNG, the sourcing requirements will be tough. The article (if it can be viewed as such) is not merely extremely lacking it's missing a rather key consideration of HLMG's viewed bias by many. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources given below by Avisnacks are the ones that I also found but was unsure about also including since I was (and indeed am) debating whether the presumed preference of various Israeli newspapers to talk independently about the HLMG might prevent them from being suitable sources. We probably wouldn't rule out the bbc as a source on pro-uk groups, so I was unsure. However with the addition of the National Review source which gives both plenty of detail and is presented in a more neutral fashion, along with the telegraph source, plus the potential additional of the other sources, I am confident enough to say that WP:NORG is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A political pressure group masquarading as something semi-official. They have no real notability themselves. Their material may have been used by notable politicians but WP:NOTINHERITED. SpinningSpark 09:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The policy requires that an "organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:ORG). It has acquired significant coverage in the newspapers below (all independent of the subject). While the HLMG has an explicit mandate that may very well bias their findings, I will note that political pressure groups are not ipso facto insignificant. Regarding independence, Wikipedia stresses that "independence does not imply even-handedness" (WP:IS).
- Significant coverage of HLMG:
- jewish press
- times of israel
- Jerusalem Post
- Telegraph
- National Review Avisnacks

(talk) 10:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strikedown my comment because this is significant coverage, thanks for finding it. The article clearly needs to be expanded, I'll see if I can help with that later. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't do it for me. The articles are essentially regurgitated press releases of the organisation. We wouldn't accept such material as counting towards notability for a company so I don't see why we should accept it here. The articles are about the reports produced by this group. There is no real information there about the group themselves. SpinningSpark 13:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or self-promotion. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage listed at this AfD is not significant; here for example is a report that the group issued to promote itself: HLMG Report: Hezbollah the Most Powerful Non-State Armed Force. Etc. It's typical PR-driven coverage; does not meet WP:ORGIND. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG, no significant coverage yet. Snowycats (talk) 04:11, 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. Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papan Bunga[edit]

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

Subject is a "flower board", decorating texts with flowers on a board", as display to send message to recipient(s) on certain occasions such as weddings, births or funerals. Sources provided are from youtube. A search found all sources from net are florist shops for sales promotion/transaction purposes. Fails WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 7 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. A redirect to Medication discontinuation can be created once that article exists. Sandstein 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuation[edit]

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

Word is not notable by itself. Article consists almost solely of original research. I think Wiktionary should be the one with pages that are purely dictionary definitions of words that are not the subject of focused, scholarly study. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Discontinuation is an increasingly important and notable concept that warrants its own article. It is an issue involving end of life discussions, risk vs. benefit, development of new evidence, changes in guidelines and more. I agree with NapoliRoma that it's better to have a single page such as Treatment discontinuation focused solely on medical issues rather than lumping the product one here too.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Addit: I support deleting this article and retaining some of the content in a separate article (Medication discontinuation - draft)--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 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 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete - As the article is now (and has been for years), then most of the content is better suited for inclusion/merging into some relevant article(s) about medicine, though I have no idea what such relevant article(s) might be (I have no competencies within any medical field).
As for non-medicine related uses of the word "Discontinuation", then: Wiktionary is the proper location.
I agree with "Tom (LT)" that "Discontinuation" has general notability to it, but disagree that it's a notable concept, because it's not a concept, but rather (at most) is an action, which may sometimes (but not always) be taken as part of something systemic ("Planned obsolescence" being an example of something systemic).
In short: I don't see "Discontinuation" as having any non-contextual importance (i.e. no significance in of its own), to any other extend than Wiktionary is its proper place. --DexterPointy (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @DexterPointy you make a good point that this article is excessively broad. Would you support retaining some of the content as I propose above? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tom (LT) I support retaining the medicine related content here on Wikipedia, - but doing so by moving/merging it into already existing article(s), not by creating a new separate article for it. This "Discontinuation" article has been here since 2006, yet has utterly failed to evolve into a "juicy" article. I find it extremely unlikely that a subset of this article (the medicine content) can somehow garner editors interest, if it got spawned into a separate article.
    Saying: Let's not create yet-another orphan stub article, but instead rather add the content to an already existing article, i.e. put the content into an already existing valuable meaningful context, thereby adding the value to already existing article(s). -- DexterPointy (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to DexterPointy that merge and delete is not possible for licensing reasons, we can do only either the one or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: : I don't see how partial transferring of some content from one Wikipedia article to one or more Wikipedia articles can possibly become a licensing problem. I'm not suggesting that anything be transferred out of Wikipedia. Is it me or you who's missing something, and, more importantly, what?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our licence requires that all edits are attributed to their author. This is usually done via the history, which disappears if an article is deleted. That's why we can't merge and then delete content: the content would no longer be properly attributed. We can, however, merge and redirect. Sandstein 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining attribution can be done at time of cut & paste, by writing whatever might be needed into the edit summary. (Incidentally, not all edits across Wikipedia are attributed to any identifiable author; it's easy to find edits made by bots or random IP-addresses). -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we require, at a minimum, a link back to the original page. Please see the guideline WP:COPYWITHIN. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is not a coherent topic. We don't for example have an article on "initiation" for starting a treatment. This is just indiscriminate and we don't do that in WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - discontinuation is just a generic word meaning 'stopping doing something', nothing more specific than that. This is Wiktionary territory, at best. It there are issues with the discontinuation of a particular medical treatment, they should be addressed in a specific manner on the page relating to that treatment, not as a separate topic. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not NEO ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep as a disambiguation page.~~ Tom (LT)'s approach works best, especially since articles like Withdrawal syndrome (redirected from Discontinuation syndrome) and Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome show that medication discontinuation is a significant topic. Once User:Tom (LT)/Medication discontinuation moves into mainspace, this article should disambiguate between Medication discontinuation and End-of-life (product). Newslinger (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Medication discontinuation after moving relevant content to the new article. I've added a redirect notice to End-of-life (product) on User:Tom (LT)/Medication discontinuation. Newslinger (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be moved to Wiktionary. Waddie96 (talk) 15:31, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito Productions[edit]

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

Article about a script clearance company, citing no reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it has to have enough reliable source coverage about it in media to get over GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But there's no referencing being cited here at all, and the article isn't actually even trying for any notability claim stronger or more compelling than "it exists". Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Listcruft and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Agreed, this does not meet WP:NCORP. = paul2520 (talk) 19:05, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender entertainers[edit]

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

Article of very unclear utility. This merely defines its title as a term, rather than encyclopedically addressing it as a concept, and then lists the names of just two people who fit the definition, out of literally hundreds or thousands -- and not even the two who have the strongest claim to being the most famous, either. In theory, the list could simply be expanded -- but since List of transgender people already exists and isn't unmaintainably long, I just don't see the value in spinning the entertainers off as a separate list from everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list does not serve any encyclopaedic purpose. And contains two (2) persons. This is typical of baseless list-creation. -The Gnome (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Transgender and transsexual entertainers exists (along with more specific trans entertainer categories!) and requires less upkeep. I can't find a policy on this; it just seems redundant. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 21:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 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) 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Originalmess; the category will do for now. = paul2520 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category:Transgender and transsexual entertainers is much more pertinent and the creator of this article may not have known that the category exists. The article is redundant at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How's the leader formed[edit]

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

Unremarkable Chinese "meme", fails WP:V because the title is not used in any source and WP:NOT since it reads like a dictionary definition. No evidence of notability, half of the sources in the article are dead links. The editor whose username is Z0 17:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a trivial, fringe, non-notable subject. It does not merit an entry even in its own-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete User:It's gonna be awesome has created a large number of POVy articles about unremarkable people or memes which have been deleted or currently nominated for deletion. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is being translated from Chinese Wikipedia. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even a suggestion of notability. I strongly suggest the creator write these things up better, in better English, with better sources, if they want these articles to stand a chance. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia asks contributors to be able to write in perfect English before they can make any contribution? Appears no. If it's not written with proper grammar, people can help improve it. And the initial contributors would greatly appreciate their helping hands.--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia does not require that--but if you write it better with better sources there might not be so many editors who find your contributions problematic. BTW I wasn't (just) talking about grammar. In this case, the very title is in improper English (you should check that yourself), and what this supposed animation is, and how and why it was produced, is unclear. That's not a matter of (just) grammar. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about "perfect English", It's gonna be awesome? Wikipedia does not demand diplomas in the English language by its contributors. But, at the same time, Wikipedia is foundationally an encylopaedia, before and above all else. And encyclopaedias contain text written in a manner that is simple, informative, paedagogic, explanatory, inspiring, and so on. To write text that meets such requirements, one needs to speak and write in the specific language on a level that is way above elementary. Contributors must be quite proficient in their understanding and use of English; I'd imagine somewhere at or above ILR Level 3. I'm able to converse in the language of Freedonia but this does not make me a competent contributor to the Freedonian Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One should write the kind of English that makes it look like an article is on a notable subject. If the actual subject is hard to understand, and the claim to importance incomprehensible or unclear, then one should improve one's English. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Centre (Moncton)[edit]

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

Not notable over any other strip mall. Old tenants that would have made it notable are gone. Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether they're strip malls or indoor facilities, shopping malls are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, or even because their own self-published websites about themselves nominally verify the fact. Rather, you need to be able to reliably source some evidence of distinctiveness, such as historical or social or political context — and just being able to walk around the mall to original research a list of its anchor tenants doesn't accomplish that either. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill shopping center. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - haven't seen Zellers mentioned for a long time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:16, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LuxCore[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article on a on-notable cryptocurrency. MER-C 15:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Text is so badly written it might've been composed by a love torn bot. -The Gnome (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominators comments and the article is horrible. Ultimograph5 (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard Issues, not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources which don't just feature any and every CC that falls from the sky. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:31, 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 speedy keep per nominator withdraw and WP:NPOL HunterM267 ^talk 01:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable politician. Neither of the two references in the article say anything useful. One is just the home page of a general Irish government site; I can't find anything at all about him there. The other (electionsireland.org) is probably not a WP:RS, and doesn't say anything significant about him anyway. My own searching failed to find anything better, but (surprise!) there's a lot of people named O'Leary in Ireland and many of them have been elected to office, so I could just be missing him in the noise. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per the numerous comments below. But, really, the references suck. Based on what's there now, this doesn't even pass WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William O'Leary (Irish politician)[edit]

Keep - He was a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the National Parliament of Ireland. Per WP:Politician all members of national assemblies are auotmatically notable - Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Kindly withdraw the nomination. Spleodrach (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest the nominator re-acquaint themselves with notability guidelines. Spleodrach (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an elected member of the Dáil – isn't that enough to pass WP:N now? Or is it just for America, where even candidates for an election are undeletable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since subject, having been an MP, passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from inherent WP:Politician notability already noted, I can see some references in 1916 revolution books in Google books. Mcewan (talk) 20:31, 7 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 Deadpool. As an interim measure. Consensus that this character is not notable. Editors can now figure out whether and where to merge any content from history. I'm not sure why List of Marvel Comics characters: M was proposed as a merge target; this character's name does not begin with M. Sandstein 08:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Deadpool (comics)[edit]

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

I seriously doubt Lady Deadpool is a notable comic character. No reliable sources in Google whatsoever that I can find. I believe her appearances are limited with 22 according to the Marvel Wikia, with no film or TV adaptations released or planned. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel is releasing a toy figure of her this year. Still looking for references, added one about her to the article. Google news search for "Lady Deadpool" has a lot to sort through. Dream Focus 19:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article with referenced materials. ComicsVerse gives her significant coverage. [16] IGN [17] and CBR [18] only give her passing coverage, I don't think it significant enough to count. If anyone can find additional coverage that helps it pass the GNG ping me. Dream Focus 19:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, it should be moved to Lady Deadpool which is currently a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M- Existence of toys (there was a minimate a few years ago) lends some notability, but not enough for a stand alone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comment. Put this info on the list page then delete this page and have Lady Deadpool redirect to the list as this has no really significant links and is an unnecessary specification. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deadpool. I don't know how "alternate universe" Marvel characters are generally handled, but the (extremely limited) amount of information on this minor comic character can be handled at Deadpool. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Read (executive)[edit]

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

Yep, he's the executive of a mass-media company.But, where's the independent non-trivial coverage about him.Lots of talk about his notable relatives but near nothing about him except announcenents of his appointment in industry-PR-feed(s) except the Guardian piece which covers not him but the changes at the helm of the comapny. ∯WBG^converse 12:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The Guardian article is a quick announcement, with photo portraits, of the new people, subject and someone else, taking over as managing director and chairman respectively. Two other sources are about subject's father and grandfather; another source is about his wife (for whom someone has put up, in hoping, her own red inked Wikipedia article); and the rest are industry publications posting up blurbs or reporting generic corporate stuff.

To get something going about an executive, in terms of Wikipedia, we must have something about the person, their achievements and failures, their style, beliefs, background, effect, and so on, as evidenced by sources. We do not have this here. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search doesn't turn up other sources except a Vogue article, but Vogue is owned by Conde Nast, of which he is an executive, so I don't think that qualifies as independent. The sources in the article aren't sufficient per The Gnome above. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:54, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhuli Gel[edit]

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

Yeah, it's a brand-drug that exists but where's any independent non-PR coverage about the same?

AFAIR, being a brand-drug, (there's so many combinations operating in the market and there's drug-directories for the purpose) isn't an automatic claim to notability.

Likely promo-stuff. ∯WBG^converse 12:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable brand. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 8 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. There seems to be a consensus that the subjects barely scrapes our notability guidelines and I won't pursue further..... (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Lewis[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any reliable non-corp-spam independent source that establishes how she passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG.A lot of un-sourced/ill-sourced advertisement and a lot of talks about her notable father and relatives.Has been subject to some non-notable recognitions/awards. ∯WBG^converse 12:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or (second choice) Merge with Reginald F. Lewis. Try a news search for "Christina Lewis ASC" and "Christina Lewis Halpern" (some sources call her the latter, I guess this is her name after marriage). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Lewis Halpern was a good-search-term, fetching more sourcing but I'm afraid that she still fails to make the cut for a stand-alone article.

A NYT fashion-section about her marriage or a Tech-republic interview do not grant significant encyclopedic notability, IMO. (The latter was a new find:))

Neither does a blog-post at Nature.com (with not much editorial vetting) or a STEM-profile or a Baltimore piece, (which largely covers her father, from her words/memoir). (The former was a new find:))

I don't see anything in reliable (quasi)-independent sources other than these......

Definitely, a few lines can be added to her father's article, though:)∯WBG^converse 16:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on account of subject squeaking past WP:GNG.

Sources examined:

The New York Times link takes us to social announcement of her marriage. Nothing there.

The Baltimore Sun features an interview with the article's subject; a legitimate proof of notability.

The East Hampton Star sports a fully fledged portrait.

One Root link is all about her father. Nothing there. Yet, the other Root article features her extensively.

There's an interview she gave to 33voices. Nothing much in that.

We have a real estate article she wrote in Cottages & Gardens. Nothing there either.

The Business Insider piece name drops her twice in a report about Goldman Sachs "reaching out to communities."

There's a PBS piece about All Star Code with nothing about the subject.

Note : There's a line that we often read in articles about her ("If my father were a young man today, where would he want to go?"), with variations ("I realized that if my father were a young man today, he would no doubt be working in technology"). Could be it's a line she repeats in every interview, could be her PR people at work. Still, subject is (just barely) past the notability threshold, although all this could be merged into an article about All Star Code. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Gnome. Examining all of the sources that The Gnome provided and analyzed (thank you :)), there seems to be a few reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage, with the rest of the sources either being primary sources or primarily about something related to Christina rather than directly about her, such as her company or her father. Passes WP:GNG but barely.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Gnome/WP:GNG. Here's some more sources:

PBS video on All Star Code where they interview her for part of it

TechRepublic article mentioned (How does this not support notability per GNG? It's not a press release, so it's reliable and independent per the WP:RS noticeboard on TR)

Bloomberg interview on ASC but also on the subject's beliefs

Harper's Bazaar article about her book.

originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 20:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the TechRepublic and Harper's Bazaar sources to the article. Anybody feel free to add the other two sources as well.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keepish. I just cleaned this up. There were some very basic flaws, like calling the subject by her first name, repeating her dad's accomplishments four times, and some promotional dreck. But there is keepable core. Those issues should have been addressed before this was moved to mainspace. We'll have to watch this to prevent promotional crap from coming back into it. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article, at least in its original form, praised subject's dad so much and was created by a single-purpose account leads me to speculate there might be a connection between subject and creator, even if on a perhaps strictly business basis. However, this does not affect the notability assessment. -The Gnome (talk) 05:27, 8 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. Worth mentioning that there hasn't been much change in content since the original discussion closed as No Consensus soon after the article's creation, but it's been nearly six years. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East River Monster[edit]

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

Somebody mistook a dog carcass for a monster. No lasting RS coverage beyond a few "slow news day" stories. –dlthewave ☎ 12:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Globster. Looks like the name has actually been used at least a couple of times; apart from the dead dog referenced in the article, it seems there was also a dead fish the year before that received the name (see https://www.livescience.com/14325-east-river-monster-mutant.html here), and received the same sort of couple of days of coverage. There are plenty of newspaper references (as you would expect for something that washed up near NYC), but it appears to have had no lasting significance, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before the next floater on the Hudson is dragged out. An article about a dead dog and a dead fish? Inclusionists will have an orgasm. -The Gnome (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about a specific "monster" (the dead dog), not a catchall for everything that goes by the name of "East River Monster." It's not a globster (decomposed whale) but it does fit the same category as the Montauk Monster and Panama Creature. –dlthewave ☎ 19:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to East River - not notable enough for its own article, but the multiple "river monsters" could add a sentence or two the section on history. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 21:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Sgerbic (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. How is a dead organism notable? AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Lincoln is a dead organism.

-The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wholly unsuitable topic for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:35, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cannon[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The only source presently included in the article is of his employer. Lordtobi (✉) 12:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NSPORTS. Biggest claim to fame was a failed bid to purchase toffees. -The Gnome (talk)
Delete not all professors are notable, nothing less would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 8 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no other contributions (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Laleye[edit]

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

~~A case of WP:TOOSOON. He has only minor roles, yet. He may become popular in the future, but until then, he should not have an article here. 2Joules (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:56, 7 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. Nominated by a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no other contributions (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McKenna (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

~~Non-notable businessman/consultant. Cannot meet WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:56, 7 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 08:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dzeva Avdic[edit]

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

Author of insufficient notability. I can find no indication that her book ("My Smile is my revenge") is a "bestsellers and caused a lot of discussion", and the provided sources are either directly promotional or passing mentions. If someone can perform an informed search in Serbian, that would be helpful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR lacking substantive reviews of her work, and there's nothing better. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 8 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 08:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kerr[edit]

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

Prod tag removed without comment. Non-notable subject, failing WP:ATHLETE. No reference from any reliable secondary source, fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable surfer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 8 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 08:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine Soares[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing notable, fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been rector (president) of two university-level institutions, Christ the King Major Seminary and National Catholic Institute of Theology Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 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 05:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 03:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:PROF as rector of two institutions of higher learning. Tone and sourcing are fine for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass GNG. As for PROF(6) - this applies to major institutions. Per Christ the King Seminary (Pakistan)'s page, the largest class in the seminary was 98 students in 1990, and in 50 years of existence - this institution has 780 graduates. As for National Catholic Institute of Theology - it seems to be located inside the seminary, and as of 2010 - "there were 35 students studying for their Bachelors in Theology degree at the NCIT" - it also seems that it provides its BAs via correspondence with from Melbourne University. So - neither of this institutions would be considered major by any stretch - so this does not pass on PROF(6), and GNG is clearly not met as well.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 7 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 delete. G11 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Geisler[edit]

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

Non notable person fails WP:ANYBIO and almost certainly an undeclared paid contribution. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO, have added a g11, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 19:24, 8 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. Michig (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Huffman[edit]

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

Declined A7 because he has credits for notable projects but I cannot find any reliable sources to verify anything. All I can find are passing mentions in cast or crew lists related to the works in question but that's it. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 07:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate biographical information in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. The IMDB, the only source, is not accepted by Wikipedia as a souce that confers notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 06:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a couple of passing mentions in the news and added them to the article, but it doesn't look like there's enough in the press to pass WP:GNG. I don't believe that IMDB is considered a reliable source (could be corrected on that if wrong...) Would happily change my position of good sources are provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 8 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 delete. G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of Xi Jinping[edit]

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

Apparently a POV fork of the Xi Jinping article pushing a certain agenda. While Xi's leadership style has been discussed and some commentators have likened his style to an emperor (expecially in the wake of the published Xi Jinping Thought), a "Cult" does not receive wide coverage. Therefore request deletion as a) POV fork, b) lack of notability and c) promotion of a certain thought/agenda. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up please because the article has been improved and there is a corresponding article on Chinese Wikipedia. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERLANGS, the argument to Keep the article because it exists in another language-Wikipedia is not valid. -The Gnome (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also, info already mentioned in main Xi Jinping article, which is a more appropriate location. Jmertel23 (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the corresponding article on the Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对习近平的个人崇拜) appears to translate as "Personal worship of Xi Jinping". I think this is closer to "Public relations image of Xi Jinping" than "Cult of Xi Jinping". The article itself uses terms like "official personal promotion of Xi Jinping" and "personal image of Xi Jinping" when restating the title. And contains headers like "Image public relations" and "TV promo". There is no clear grounds to use the word "cult", which is a POV term loaded with negativity and not supported by sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Someone was possibly going for an essay, then settled for cliff notes. Let's just say WP:TOOSOON, Henry. -The Gnome (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and a poorly written sub-stub. -Zanhe (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every major politician has a "cult" which needs to be described in their main page or a more neutral title like "public image of.." Sdmarathe (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving to Personal worship of Xi Jinping?--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 14:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the literal translation given by Google translate, but I believe it is inaccurate. I believe that in context the Chinese title correctly translates to Official public relations image of Xi Jinping. Looking into the subject in depth with regards to the naming guidelines, I have decided the acceptable title would be Public image of Xi Jinping. This is also what Sdmarathe suggested. The content would need to be neutral. You can look at articles like Public image of Vladimir Putin, Public image of Barack Obama and Public image of Bill Clinton among others that are titled in this way. These should indicate how a future Xi Jinping article could be laid out. Remember the Chinese Wikipedia has different policies to here and their article may not be acceptable, even if copied over literally. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been put up for deletion on account of the ostensible imprecision of its title. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion if I gonna move it to Public image of Xi Jinping?--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 14:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @It's gonna be awesome: I think a discussion about changing the article title is a bit of a moot point as the contents is lacking. The public image articles for Obama, Clinton and Putin are break-out articles from the main article, focussing on a certain aspect. The main article has a similar section, Xi Jinping#Cult of personality, which I think has a better writing style. It may be an idea to focus on expanding this section and break out to a separate article once this section is more comprehensive. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think so too. Thanks for the opinion! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 15:10, 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.

Lions Clubs International[edit]

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Queried speedy delete. Lions Clubs International is widely known. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) needs to take a WP:SOFIXIT approach rather than getting anywhere close to speedy deletion; there's WP:ADVERT concerns for sure but absolutely no need to delete. Known service organization and critical non-profit. Personally I would have ignored and warned per WP:BURO but it's good to build the consensus to take it to AfD. Nate • (chatter) 19:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Absolutely no need to get rid of this. Good article on notable subject. Ultimograph5 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep very well known and notable. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No merit in argument for deletion. Clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. 100-yo service organization with chapters all over creation. The article should be made more encyclopedic, but it is not so egregious as to merit deletion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 9 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 08:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Married with Children XXX[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not the Bradys XXX and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Ain't Charmed XXX. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article should be deleted purely on the title alone!, Anyway fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 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 08:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lawrence[edit]

(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:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yet another won-an-award-but-the-sources-are-crap porn bio. This may pass the most liberal reading of PORNBIO, but I don't see such a low bar as a predictor of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to be built on reliable sources. This article totally lacks them. The possible passing of PORNbio here indicates that that inclusion standard is way too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The paucity of biographical information indicates that the claimed award was not significant enough to generate RS coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PORNBIO & GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 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 Merge in a yet-to-be-determined manner. Consensus that a merger of some sort is required. This can be discussed separately. Sandstein 08:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities in Alaska[edit]

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

Appears to be redundant with List of places in Alaska Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until someone is willing to undertake a merge. The article contains a lot of information that is not in List of places in Alaska, such as coordinates. Thus, the page cannot be considered entirely redundant. A merge is going to be a lot of work because of the big differences in formatting of the two lists. SpinningSpark 00:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are only coordinates for 2 or 3 of the hundred plus places, everything else in the table is blank. In fact the whole page is almost an empty table. Mattximus (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 3? You can't count. SpinningSpark 15:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want accuracy, the table is missing 94.6% of the coordinates, and they were barely touched since 2008, or just over 10 years ago. This page is completely useless. Mattximus (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but List of places in Alaska needs to be merged. There's no reason for there to be separate lists for each letter when they'd fit in a single long list or just a few by letter range. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to do like all other states and have two lists, one for incorporated places (List of cities in Alaska), and one for census-designated places (which are unincorporated). I've worked hard on the first one, but I don't have time for the second at the moment. That would be perfect since it should cover every "place". Right now we have 4 overlapping articles... Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 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 02:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might be desirable, but I agree with User: Spinningspark that a merge would be difficult because of the formatting differences between List of places in Alaska and List of communities in Alaska. Vorbee (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, a merge where? List of places in Alaska and List of communities in Alaska can both be merged into List of cities in Alaska and List of census-designated places in Alaska, there is no reason to have 4 overlapping lists. Mattximus (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had mentioned those two originally, perhaps the keep vote may not have been that way. I don't think coordinates is vital to the table when it's in each place's article, and a BOLD redirect to those from both this communities list and the 26 places pages shouldn't be controversial, or can be done outside of AFD. WP's not a gazetteer so I don't see why we need a list (or a set of them by letter) that combines cities, villages, naval stations, national monuments, and Regional Educational Attendance Areas. Reywas92^Talk 20:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, though that doesn't really change the discussion much. ansh 666 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 7 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 08:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Conegrade Ltd[edit]

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

This does not seem to be an important court decision, and the sourcing available is very thin. Though I can find a smattering of passing mentions in footnotes here and there, there's nothing anywhere to suggest this trial has had any real lasting importance in setting precedent or establishing legal principles. Reyk _YO! 10:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nominator is incorrect. Yes, it's only a little High Court case, but it's cited as important in a host of important text and practitioner books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Re+Conegrade+Ltd%22 Fundamentally, every case is a precedent, and potentially important. Wik idea 13:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On fence. The article as it stands gives no explanation of notability, nothing about where it was used as a precedent, etc. Deb (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I got someone to check and it was applied as a precedent in Oxford Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Re; Wilson v Masters International Ltd [2009] according to Lexis Library, and mentioned in Cosy Seal Insulation Ltd (In Administation), Re^[a] and Wilson v Masters International Ltd^[b] according to Westlaw. Westlaw also lists it as being cited or mentioned in two journal articles,^[c]^[d] and also in two books.^[e]^[f] I made sure to get printout of both if anyone needs them. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Cosy Seal Insulation Ltd (In Administation), Re [2016] EWHC 1255 (Ch); [2016] 2 B.C.L.C. 319; CHD; 02 June 2016
^ Wilson v Masters International Ltd [2009] EWHC 1753 (Ch); [2010] B.C.C. 834; [2009] 2 B.C.L.C. 485; [2010] B.P.I.R. 608; Ch D; 10 July 2009
^ The Re Duomatic principle and sections 320-322 of the Companies Act 1985. Asset sales; Consent; Directors; Formalities; Liquidation; Shareholders. J.B.L. 2004, Jan, 121-129
^ Substantial property transaction involving company directors. Companies; Directors; Liquidation; Shareholders. I.L. & P. 2003, 19(2), 57
^ McPherson's Law of Company Liquidation 4th Ed. Chapter: Chapter 11 - Assets Available for Division and Distribution. Documents: 9. - The need to establish desire to produce preferential effect.
^ Sealy & Milman: Annotated Guide to Insolvency Legislation 20th Ed. - 2017. Chapter: Insolvency Act 1986. Documents: 239: Preferences (England and Wales).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 7 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rosary parish, Warispura[edit]

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

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more significant than an ordinary run of the mill parish as it runs six schools including a high school for girls, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 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 01:34, 7 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Vianney's Church, Peshawar[edit]

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

Nothing historic, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources coverage for a number of serious terror incidents that rise above routine coverage, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 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 01:34, 7 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jude's Church, Karachi[edit]

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

Nothing historic, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more significant than a run of the mill parish as it runs a high school Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 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 01:34, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Blomfield[edit]

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

An directory-like page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. The only notable entity he's associated with is Mondo (bank) and notability is not inherited. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/Lljammydodger77 who also created the Mondo article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, keep this promotional text, created and amplified essentially by kamikaze accounts, since, nonetheless, and on the basis of numerous online, reliable sources (such as this, this, this, etc, which are all about the company and the person), subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Some months ago, it'd be a cinch for a Merge with the article on the company, but notability has caught on. Mondo cane. -The Gnome (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 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 01:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promotional articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources available to meet WP:BIO. This is just one of many. Being "an unremarkable entrepreneur" is not grounds for deletion. The question is whether he meets our notability standards and sources available show he does. The article is not particularly promotional. At present it is a broadly factual stub and the way forward is to add balancing text. Just Chilling (talk) 01:52, 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. Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Rossi[edit]

(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. Sigificant 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:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the award category is not significant. Mainstream appearances are minor. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, performer has been covered in mainstream media by multiple reliable sources such as Norm Clarke (2006-04-26). "Clinton nearly sees rocket's red glare". Las Vegas Review-Journal, Stanton, Thomas J. "Sophia Rossi Pens Column for DVD Buzz". AVN.com. Adult Video News appeared in Bachelor Party Vegas and Penn and Teller which meets #3 on WP:PORNBIO The person has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. She has focus on mainstream media in the last few years. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not won awards that would show notability. Passing mention in minor articles does not add to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and PORNBIO. The reliable sources don't add up to significant coverage and the few mainstream appearances were minor. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:11, 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.

[1] Cosy Seal Insulation Ltd (In Administation), Re [2016] EWHC 1255 (Ch); [2016] 2 B.C.L.C. 319; CHD; 02 June 2016

[2] Wilson v Masters International Ltd [2009] EWHC 1753 (Ch); [2010] B.C.C. 834; [2009] 2 B.C.L.C. 485; [2010] B.P.I.R. 608; Ch D; 10 July 2009

[3] The Re Duomatic principle and sections 320-322 of the Companies Act 1985. Asset sales; Consent; Directors; Formalities; Liquidation; Shareholders. J.B.L. 2004, Jan, 121-129

[4] Substantial property transaction involving company directors. Companies; Directors; Liquidation; Shareholders. I.L. & P. 2003, 19(2), 57

[5] McPherson's Law of Company Liquidation 4th Ed. Chapter: Chapter 11 - Assets Available for Division and Distribution. Documents: 9. - The need to establish desire to produce preferential effect.

[6] Sealy & Milman: Annotated Guide to Insolvency Legislation 20th Ed. - 2017. Chapter: Insolvency Act 1986. Documents: 239: Preferences (England and Wales).

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]