Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 May	2 June >

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. Sandstein 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nube y la chica de azul[edit]

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

The telenovela was canceled, according to this source of People en Español. Philip J FryTalk 23:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems a fair enough reason, the deletion itself certainly doesn't seem notable enough to provide notability that way. Coverage beforehand would now seem more crystal ball. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess characters#Cyrene. Sandstein 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrene (Xena: Warrior Princess)[edit]

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

The article currently lacks secondary sources. Upon further research, I do not believe that the subject has received enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to be considered significant enough for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess characters. Not saying there aren't problems there, but character lists for substantial properties have some level of acceptance as essentially being spinouts. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I completely forgot about character lists for some odd reason. It may have issues, but it has potential for a good list if work is put into it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above; not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identity and change[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced and written like a personal essay. Explicitly raises questions and says things like "perhaps" to the reader rather than stating facts. Tagged as a mess for over two years, but was messy already long before that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 23:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay composed of WP:OR. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly unsalvageable original research and novel synthesis in essay form. This should have been taken to AFD and axed long ago. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of a bunch of old essays/lectures by Larry Sanger (see User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text) created in the ancient days before our standards for notability, referencing, etc. were defined. If an article at this title is needed (I tend to think it is covered in many related articles), it would be better to start from a blank slate. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of the criterion is a bit problematic, too. Maybe that's next. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also reminded me of Interconnectivity and Interdependence, which I noticed during this AfD and then forgot about. XOR'easter (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The current content is an original philosophical essay. Not a sourced encyclopedia article. The title is also an Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode, so redirect it to that article or the List_of_Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._episodes. Have a disambiguation page created if other uses are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23mason (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since that redirect would have nothing to do with the history of the current page, the proper way to implement what you suggest would probably be to delete the current page and create a new redirect at the name. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the episode guide, it seems 2.3 is the point on the caring meter below which episode article generation becomes unviable. This episode was the first to reenter the apparent "cool zone", so if somebody wants to create a whole (sourced) synopsis, I wouldn't be (intrinsically) opposed to its existence here. A redirect is certainly easier, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the list wouldnt require the creation of a new article.--23mason (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avanoo[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, such as executive interviews. Created by Special:Contributions/Italitok with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Clearly, WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A couple of the 8 references under the History section are passing mentions and routine listings and others relate to a crowdfunded product rather than the company; the 3 references under Investment and growth are routine start-up coverage, which falls under "trivial coverage" at WP:NCORP. I am not finding anything to suggest more than a company seeking to build a business; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FLVTO[edit]

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

FLVTO is a known adware posing as a harmless free converter. Both their website and program are advert-ridden, while the program, when downloaded, is notoriously hard to remove. The article has been tagged for COI and tone, requiring a complete rewriting. But per WP:NOTADVERTISING getting rid of it is a better solution IMO. Brandmeister^talk 22:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be notable at all. The one source with significant reliable coverage on this piece of software is an article by the Huffington Post, where they dedicate one paragraph to it. The rest of the sources just seem to have one sentence about the software, or, in some cases, none. Because of the lack of multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, this piece of software is non-notable. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 17:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Food[edit]

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

Promotional. Fails WP:NCORP. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP - too small a chain, and lacking significant coverage over time. I could not open the company homepage as it appears to be infected with some sort of virus. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local supermarket chains are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; doing redirect instead. An administrator with 2461 AfD participations, Kudpung, appears to be approving this step; feel free to undo my close if this is considered closing too early. I'm treating the redirect as "keep" (or "speedy keep #1") for WP:CLOSEAFD, which seems to be explicitly okay per WP:NOTBADNAC.(non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Secondary Examination[edit]

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

Relaying a deletion nomination made on my talk page ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a page named Higher Secondary School Certificate is already on Wikipedia. There is no need for this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri1950 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: The article has originally been created by an unregistered editor in 2004, when unregistered users apparently had been able to create pages. Interesting! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I guess the two articles should be merged.~~ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (striked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - The only bit in this article that isn't in the other is the short procedure section. Since it's so small I've just copied it across now. A formal merge wouldn't add anything, so delete seems justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose redirect would be the correct action to take Nosebagbear (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Higher Secondary School Certificate contains all the information present in Higher Secondary Examination, and the former article appears to be of higher quality to me, with at least one reference. I was a bit surprised to see the older article "losing" the conflict, but I see that article age is not a good argument for keeping a specific one. Let's ~~delete~~ Higher Secondary Examination, just as suggested by Kashmiri1950, then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- No reason why it can't be redirected.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Higher Secondary School Certificate . Any reason why the nominator couldn't have done this in the first place instead of starting an AfD? See the relevant policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Sorry, I was not aware of WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT and its mentioning in the deletion policy at WP:ATD-R when I had created this AfD entry. I also was simply not thinking of doing a redirect instead of restoring the page content and starting a deletion discussion when the actual "nominator" blanked the page. A redirect had not been originally suggested here, just merge and speedy deletion. I'll consider redirecting the next time I see a similar case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, and with no opposing statements, I'll retract this nomination and redirect as nicely suggested by Vinegarymass911 instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Mason (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as she hasn't played in a senior national team or a game between two clubs from a fully pro league. Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources in the article are available. Other online sources are routine coverage.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of independent, significant coverage, so does not meet GNG.Eldumpo (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So when this is deleted, the Everpedia article will be ranked higher in search results. Thanks for your work on the original SuperJew. Some folks are working extra hard on Wikipedia extinction. Hmlarson (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hmlarson: Honestly, the amount of effort people put in to deleting pages astounds me when they could use that effort for creating and expanding. Most recently this especially has pissed me off. --SuperJew (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fazalur Rehman (bureaucrat)[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. In Pakistan, before every election, a caretaker government is established for two months which oversees the elections. These subjects only have trivial mention in the news at the time of nomination, beyond that point, they do not get mention in the news, when the elections are over, they go into oblivion and will never do anything significant in life to achieve notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ As per nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: SheriffIsInTown (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN is the Chief Minister of Sindh and is the head of government of a sub-national entity, for instance a administrative subdivision or federal constituent entity that is of Sindh state.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: The issue is that these caretaker officials are not elected and they are not politicians. They never get coverage beyond a passing and trivial mention in a news story. You are never going to find any scholarly coverage on most of these individuals anytime in future. I just listed the nomination in politician listing as there was no alternative available under people category otherwise he is not even a politician. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many caretakers before were appointed to other positions after their service and the nominator is assuming the near future, being a head of provincial government is an important position and can result in important decisions. Jibran1998 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The folks who are already notable before being assigned in a caretaker setup are a different story. The folks who are getting an article for just being nominated for two months caretaker setup are a problem. Just being in caretaker administration does not make them notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep chief minister. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether a caretaker chief minister merit a stand-alone entry or not is another debate which should better be discussed at WP:N. But in this case, the subject clearly passes WP:N because he served as federal secretary for ports and shipping, Sindh chief secretary (senior-most position held in the civil services of the provinces of Pakistan), and an adviser to former chief minister Qaim Ali Shah as per this news peiece. A detailed profile can be accessed here. I believe he marginal pass GNG. --Saqib (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is the head of the provincial government of Sindh, has been the senior most bureaucrat of the province from 2007 to 2010, therefore he fulfills the notability criteria. Ahmer Jamil Khan 10:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @SheriffIsInTown: I'm just curious why would someone nom a BLP on a Chief Minister for deletion just because he's caretaker, and at the same time create himself a BLP on another caretaker Chief Minister Alauddin Marri who is less known than the former. I would like to know your thoughts. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD was created days ago and has been a learning process for me, I did not know that each and every head of a province or state can have a page as per WP:POLITICIAN. Also, you can see which way the AFD is heading anyway so if policy allows then why should not I partake in content creation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Willing to withdraw this nom now? --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to, a week ago but honestly I did not understand the process, they made it too complicated so I thought there are multiple keep votes, it’s going to be kept anyway so why bother. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Wright[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, interviews, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. Award categories of "Best Male Performer in BBW Movie" and "New stud" are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable, all coverage is part of promotional smoke in a super promotional industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get Licensed[edit]

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

We don't really have a corporate analogue of WP:BLP1E, but if we did, this would be it. A company with zero non-PR sources other than a brief storm over one provider exceeding class ratios, mainly supported by press releases saying how the firm reacted tremendously well to the problem. The article was started by a WP:SPA who hasn't edited since, and it was obvious promotion from the outset.

There's nothing here of any substance at all, and the first ten pages of Google only yield directories and press releases. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, was not able to find quality sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jusgo Supermarket[edit]

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

A supermarket chain with just 4 stores, founded in 2011. Fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, insufficient in depth coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, No more promotional than any other article about stores. A simple search pulls up plently of references. Reb1981 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, meets WP:ORGCRIT Reb1981 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a supermarket with four stores is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill collection of supermarkets with zero indications of notability, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria Flames[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non notable university ice hockey team Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nomination. 344917661X (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like 99% of university sport in the UK, not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Panthers[edit]

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

Self referenced, non notable university ice hockey team Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nomination. 344917661X (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like 99% of university sport in the UK, not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Letdown (band)[edit]

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

There is no evidence at all that this band satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the references is a page that doesn't even mention the beautiful Letdown, one merely makes one brief passing mention, and the others are dead links. The article has been tagged for sources for over 14 months, but nothing better has been produced in that time, and my searches also failed to produce evidence of notability. (PROD contested by the creator of the article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - recently formed group with no indication of notability per WP:BAND, and no significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources. Only claim of notability is founder's history with The Pin-Ups, and WP:Notability is not inherited. I would have suggested a merge to Mondo C. Castro, but that poorly-sourced article also makes a very weak case for notability independently of The Pin-Ups. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a quick search and I can't find any sources that support WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is problematic, as mentioned previous. Apparent vanity article; author's 4 year edit history is exclusive to pages that are directly related to the promotional interest of this band and related subjects. This article specifically, at best, is WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Observable universe#Large-scale structure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic web[edit]

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

The article states the "[cosmic web] can be distinguished from large-scale structure of the universe which describe all kind of components, as matter and energy." I don't see that this is the case. The first reference given states "The large-scale structure of the universe is a complex web of clusters, filaments, and voids". The second one states something similar "The network of filaments with embedded clusters surrounding voids, which has been seen in maps derived from redshift surveys and reproduced in simulations, has been referred to as the cosmic web."

Open to a redirect to large-scale structure of the universe/Observable universe#Large-scale structure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a metaphor, not really an astronomical term. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Observable universe#Large-scale structure, where it is mentioned. Cosmic web looks like an evocative metaphor that has been used by some groups but isn't in wide use. Even in the first cited paper, it's admitted that sheet-like structures may not fit neatly into the web picture. Nonetheless, the metaphor is verifiable in the literature and with roughly 30 page views a day, it is plausible as a search term. Hence redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Observable universe#Large-scale structure as originally created. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this is simply a junior synonym. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no content to merge. wumbolo ^^^ 13:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~- The word is well-known, I would also think of redirecting but the word can also have its own article. DanielQ8 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

@DanielQ8: how is it a distinct concept worth it's own article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb - If you do a quick Google Search] you'll see many results proving a notable rate of notability. Here are some links to prove a rate of notability for WP:GNG: 1, 2, and 3. There are probably more, thanks!! DanielQ8 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielQ8:, like I said, I'm fine with a redirect, but how is "cosmic web" a distinct concept from "large-scale structure of the universe" that would warrant its own article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Headbomb, yup, I have changed my !vote to !redirect. DanielQ8 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. DanielQ8 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect - Based on discussion, see 1. DanielQ8 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sock comments struck. wumbolo ^^^ 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (To Srnec: the nominator edited the AfD to add a period to their "not notable" rationale, just before you added your comment. I don't see the point in waiting for the creator of a bad nomination to realize their mistake.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Benjamin Golden[edit]

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

Not notable. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is one of the most promimemt expets in the Turkic history. Jingiby (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprise this is up for deletion. Peter Golden is one of the best-known scholars on the history of the Turkic people, and wrote numerous books on the Turkic people and Central Asia. His works are well-reviewed - I'll list just a few reviews for one of his best-known books An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East, [1][2][3][4]. He is well-cited [5] (use Peter Golden rather than Peter Benjamin as search term in Google Books), and he is one of the editors of The Cambridge History of Inner Asia. He should easily qualify under WP:NACADEMICS #1. You just need to see how many Wikipedia pages are linked here to see how often his works are cited [6] (and there are many more articles that cited him without linking to this article). Hzh (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just KEEP. Nom did not even provide a reason for deletion. WP:SNOW.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "49 works in 5 languages and 3,709 library holdings". Many with uni presses for which reviews are available with about 100% certainty. More than enough for WP:AUTHOR. The list of publications needs to be pruned though - it actually obscures the significance of the subject's body of work. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nom has offered an argument to avoid. If they cannot bother to offer a legitimate rationale, the community shouldn't have to entertain this AFD for seven days.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to perform a non-admin closure as "snowball keep", but since the nominator has not edited WP since nominating this page, I thought it better to wait and see if s/he wishes to withdraw or else defend the choice. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaste Christopher Inegbedion[edit]

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

Fails GNG, and lacks sources necessary to establish notability. Appears to be more of a local effort at entrepreneurship relating to charitable giving. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why the article about Chaste Christopher Inegbedion is considered for deletion. He is doing amazing work at the United Nations,in Africa and in Nigeria. He is notable in many international circles. I will look for more documentation in Africa press. User:Adjoajo -- signature added

Delete. Over-expansive promotional biography of social entrepreneur. There are no major accomplishments, but participation in many small projects and memberships in a many organizations. In considering African subjects, it is sometimes necessary to be aware of the difficulty of sourcing, but the problem here is not absence of sources: it's the overabundance of very weak sources all of which are promotional notices or press releases, or interviews where he says how important he is, or his own writings, or documentation of memberships in organizations, or blogs--pretty much a compendium of every type of source which is not usable for showing notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Vega[edit]

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

Promotional blurb for a porn producer. Searches for his name and those of the companies he supposedly founded only find Wikipedia mirrors, although the owner of "MobBucks" used to be one Mike Vega, who also appears non-notable. [7] The provided sources are all deadlinks; I couldn't find the originals in the Internet Archive, and it doesn't look like they would be RS anyway. Not to be confused with Ray Vega (singer) or the jazz trumpeter. FourViolas (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Difficult to find any sources, which suggests that the person is not notable. The only sources listed in the article are dead, but two are archived - [8] [9], and they are not significant coverage that would indicate notability. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO and also fails WP:GNG with niche sources Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:ENT and the article is kind of a fluff job, possibly written by the subject himself. Doesn't really tell us anything. You could pretty much run up the same kind of bio on any individual with a camera who wanted to call himself a producer. "Known for colorful advertisements ..." Like what, for instance? Very vague, non-specific with no verifiability to speak of. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Majid Rafizadeh[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Sadeq Desai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I couldn't find any sources Edidiong (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete terms are thrown aroound with no clear definitions. It is unclear to me if Desai is a Salafist, or if he closely the mass of Islamic scholarly work and condemns those who go against it, in which case he may infact dislike Salafists just as much as those who introduce changes in the name of some form of "progress" or "liberalism". The article uses contentious terms, complete with scare quotes, without ever giving us a sense of what they actual mean. Then it lacks any working links. Beyond this we get no sense of what his works actually are, and no indication that they have an impact in any field of academic study, have the level of following that would make him a notable writer, or that he is seen as an active religious leader or theologian in a way that would make him notable. With having an article on Ulisses Soares, a man sustained as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and thus looked to at one of the top worldwide interpretors of Doctrine, by a Church with 16 million members, gone through a deletion discussion, it is clear we are no where near having a good way to define religious notability. The basic problem is that different Churches uses the same term differently, so that no one term is default a sign of notability. An Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clearly, without question notable. I would argue the same for all LDS general authorities. I have never gotten an actual consensus on this fact. A Catholic Cardinal is most likely notable, and there is a consensus that they are, but from any coherent analysis of doctinal and religious function, while many recent cardinals clearly are notable, it is not clear if everyone who has ever been appointed Cardinal would pass a coherent notability standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is generally accepted that every Catholic bishop is notable. The level of sourcing in some of the articles we have makes me less than sure of this. I can see a clear argument that every Catholic bishop in the US, and in most of Europe, Latin American and even Africa is notable. Some African countries more so. The fact that our stats of say the Diocese of Ogoja in Nigeria are 14 years old makes it hard to say how relevant the diocese size of 332,000 Catholics is. From 2005 or so to the present in Sierra Leone LDS Church membership has gone from about 5,000 to about 20,000. This despite the fact the Church had no missionaries in the country during the Ebola epidemic. I have no clue if Catholic growth rates in Nigeria, from both conversions and natural population growth, and possible migrations especially within the country, would mean in a similar time the Ogoja diocese has risen to about 1,200,000. I have my doubts the growth has been that significant, but could it have been 50% growth? Has the 20% of the population that is Catholic in Ogoja Diocese held steady, risen, or fallen? What I do know is that in 2004 the Diocese of Ogoja had about 50% more Catholics in it than the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing. Yet we have articles on every person to serve as bishop of Lansing, and none on bishops of Ogoja.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Catholic bishops are notable for the most part. Mormon bishops however are local leaders of congregations, which rarely have more than 500 members and often significantly fewer, and so are no where near notable for that. The Amish also have bishop as the title of local congregation leaders. In Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches bishops are pretty much default notable. This has been argued for Churches in the Anglican and Luthernan Tradition, but I am a little less convinced, considering how small some especially Episcopalian dioceses are in terms of numbers of congregants. In Pentacostal Traditions and some other groups that are more or less part of Evangelical Protestantism, bishop tends towards being a title given on at times an almost ad hoc basis to well respected pastors or those who lead large congregations. A few who lead megachurchs, such as Keith Butler(Michigan politician) with his 22,000 congregant Mega Church, might be notable as a religious leader. However the article as we have it now streeses his role as a political figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnpacklambert Notability is a bit tricky for religious leaders or crusaders that is why i brought it here. As you said, the page lacks any working link and talk less a reliable source. At this present stage there's nothing to prove notability. Edidiong (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I clarified the article. Theclaim in the current version is that he is the founder of the conservative "The Majis" website in South Africa. DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so General consideration probably isn't a suitable source it gives a helpful overview, including suggesting a few places to look on the issue. We seem to have three possible routes for notability - religious leader, academic and a pseudo-political role. I think the nom's thoughts that academic is probably the correct primary grounds are legitimate, though I could be convinced otherwise. The same author has an article here if someone has access, but since it's only cited by himself it wouldn't seem the most reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no claims of notability nor any working references for this recently-created article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine electronic structure[edit]

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

I just started to edit this article as it was in pretty bad shape. First I thought it referred to fine details of the band structure due to spin-orbit interaction. However, looking at the references and searching trough Google Books I've noted there is no clear notability to the subject "fine electronic structure" in solids and molecules. I think we should keep, for the moment, everything related to this in the Fine structure article similar to the Hyperfine structure article.

Also the article is in very bad shape. The sources do not correspond to what they claim. And is poorly written. MaoGo (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may be in bad shape, but it's a legit concept and notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick general web search, and found numerous sources with "fine electronic structure" in the title. [10][11][12][13][14] If the poor state of the article is making it difficult for you to write a new draft, I would encourage you to start in your userspace (that's what I always do). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you those papers are a little more eluminating. Nevertheless, what I don't grasp is if "fine electronic structure" is a name for a specific subject in solid state physics or is just a way of saying there is more detail in the spectrum either for atoms, molecules or solids. If that is the case, just a section in Fine structure seems enough.--MaoGo (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)--MaoGo (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea, physics isn't my thing (I found this article through NPP). If they are closely related, whether or not there should be a separate article has much to do with the amount of information available about this topic specifically. If covering this thoroughly would disrupt the balance of Fine structure, which given the state of that article it looks like it very well could, then it makes sense to summarize there and have a more thorough explanation here. But whether that much content exists probably depends on the answer to that question, which I cannot help you with. Try asking a WikiProject Physics member. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a message in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chemistry to see if anyone else may provide a different insight. --MaoGo (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cacharel[edit]

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

Delete Zero indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill company that produces perfume and which may be associated with notable brands but note that Notability if Not Inherited. References are (for the most part) not intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just quickly: I sympathise with the nominator – we have a truly awful article, parts of it apparently translated without attribution from the fr.wp page, and little or no evidence of notability of any kind. However, the French article has sources, and some at least are reliable and independent. Among them are:
- "INTERVIEW Jean Bousquet : "Jean-Paul Fournier est un visionnaire"". objectifgard.com. 27 October 2015.
- Cacharel quitte définitivement Nîmes, L'Usine nouvelle, 2 avril 2009
- Cacharel se sépare de son directeur artistique, L'Express Styles, 30 mars 2011
- La vie est belle pour Cacharel, L'Express Styles, 10 décembre 2008
- Nîmes a la nostalgie de Cacharel L'Expansion, 11 octobre 2001.
- Anne-Sophie Cathala, « Jean Bousquet, le retour de Monsieur Cacharel », Le Figaro, encart « Le Figaro et vous », samedi 25 / dimanche 26 juin 2016, page 39.
- Fabrice Léonard, « Liberty chéri » Le Point, 29 avril 2010
- Un vent de Liberty...histoire d'un best-seller Le Parisien, 15 mai 2010.
- Marie Varroud-Vial, Le Liberty : l'histoire d'un imprimé Puretrend.com, 17 mai 2010.
- Deux jeunes stylistes chinois à la tête de Cacharel L'Express Styles, 7 juin 2011.
- Retour aux sources : Scarlett de Cacharel, Au Parfum, 19 mai 2009
- Cacharel, Christian Bernard Group
- Cacharel n'ouvrira pas son capital malgré ses déboires, L'Expansion, 16 décembre 2009
- Eley Kishimoto, l’affaire est dans le sac, Éditions Jalou
- Cacharel et Uniqlo s'associent pour le printemps, Le Parisien, 12 avril 2011
- Des Tshirts vintage signés par Cacharel en vente chez Uniqlo, La Dépêche, 11 avril 2011

Le Figaro, Le Parisien, La Dépêche du Midi, L'Expansion, Le Point, L'Express are (or in one case, were) reputable mainstream publications. It's very hard to see how this famous company could fail to be notable by our standards. I'll try to look at this is more detail tomorrow, specially if there's any doubt about those sources (which I haven't had time to check individually and in detail). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just lost my editing session as I was saving the work. I had analysed all of the sources above and most are not intellectually independent, relying on company announcements or quotations/interviews with Bousquet. One source didn't mention Cacharel at all. Two other links did not work at all and two links as provided didn't work but I was able to find the articles. Two references in particular were lovely articles, very well written, telling the story of the company but were clearly not intellectually independent. With all that said, this L'Express reference, while starting off based on a company announcement, contains independent opinion from the third paragraph and meets the criteria for establishing notability. I also found two book references that meet the criteria:

Jean-Noël Kapferer (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. Kogan Page Publishers. pp. 165–. ISBN 978-0-7494-5085-4.
Richard Harrison Martin (1995). Contemporary Fashion. St. James Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-55862-173-2.

Based on the above, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Yes, I feel like there’s a good chance something’s been lost in translation—state of the entry aside (tho I’ve watchlisted and will try to get to it as soon as life permits), the idea Cacharel isn’t notable is a bit to France what saying, I don’t know, GAP isn’t notable would sound like in the US. Easy keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources are notable - no idea why this was added to women-related deletion discussions though. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m not mistaken it was founded as a womenswear company, and then its best-known fragrances have been marketed to women. So women was just one adjacent topic—not limited to women tho! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Sources found (see above). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Gorkhali Welfare Association[edit]

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

Nothing but a few trivial mentions in reliable sources.Nothing resemblant to decent coverage. Promotionally toned.... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. FITINDIA 06:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Artisan Hotel[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no argument for deletion has been advanced. WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not an argument for deletion. Toohool (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits as well. There is persistent, substantial coverage of the topic by regional sources over a long period of time to satisfy GNG. Toohool (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as indicated by Toohool. To save time I'll also state that there seem sufficient sources (some in article, some elsewhere under google news & books) to justify under WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the implicit reason for deletion is that WP:GNG is not met. A 64-room hotel in Vegas won't meet any SNG. There seems to (barely) be enough for GNG amidst a sea of really bad content and references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOFEAT - Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.. I'm just not seeing anything that can be referenced to bring notability for the building. The current article's content is tiptoeing around the subject but doesn't present anything about why this building is significant as a separate article. If there's an article relevant for this within a list, a merge wouldn't be a bad idea either. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article itself doesn't especially point out importance - have a good read through the sources. There seems to be sufficient stress in a variety of them to satisfy the social importance - certainly to the degree that is satisfied by "significant coverage [etc]". Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I understand that. I just don't see it with the current history of it with what is presented. I'm trying to think along National Register of Historic Places as that brings up some basis of "historical significance" even on a social level. The social elements seem as a coatrack that reminds me of the classic "In popular culture" sections. I'll look at some of the sources regardless to see if anything stands out. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per power enwiki Wolfson5 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Removing all press releases and promotional articles from the sources, appears to scrape past WP:GNG, mostly from the Sun and Spokane articles. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. The sourcing is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. This is a sales brochure / invesment prospectus, with content such as

"In May 2010, The Artisan started holding themed invite-only pool parties.[21] The Artisan also gained note for marketing a "buyout" option, allowing a patron to rent the entire property.[22]" Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per just barely enough sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rigby's Water World[edit]

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

Not yet open, and as a result not yet discussed in reliable sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON and possibly WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per SportingFlyer. The entire article is written in future tense, essentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: How about keep in Draftspace for six months? The sources i looked at a few days ago seemed to suggest it was due to be opened about now, or by now, and maybe there will be a fanfare of coverage, and the draft could be resurrected. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place was confident enough to have sold 2018 season passes. There are updates posted at a Facebook page, including "June 2 at 8:59am · Update on construction / Next week delivery of 2000 chairs... / Completion of plaster on the lazy river...12 more cabanas built...State of Georgia and white water commissioning of the slide structure(huge deal)...general clean up....local inspection...and then guess what happens.... Steve Rigby". --Doncram (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daoism–Taoism romanization issue[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. The topic "Daoism–Taoism romanization issue" is not a significant topic, just an example of a something that arises with Chinese and many other languages that have non-Latin alphabets: how different Romanisations lead to different ways of writing them in English.

With Chinese it arises because Hanyu Pinyin is a relatively modern standard, so something that was transliterated into English before 1950 often has a different Romanisation to the modern one. It’s not an "issue", none of the sources seem to identify it as such. It’s just a consequence of how transliteration between languages works. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons I have expressed in Talk, i.e. no issue, dispute or controversy exists about romanisation; one pundit contends for a linkage between the choice of romanisation and variance in theology but no other has shown any interest in the idea which is little wonder because it suggests that if one decides to use one form of romanisation one has chosen one's theology, which is close to a crackpot suggestion and patently incorrect in this specific instance. sirlanz 22:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The romanization of the word is no more an issue than thousands and thousands of other Chinese words, and no more noteworthy. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Taoism" has become the accepted standard way of writing the name in English, as Wade-Giles has been the standard way of transcribing Chinese names for over a century now. Although the modern use of the name based on pinyin - "Daoism" - may be easily understood by English-speakers with some background in Chinese, I have found it is a common cause of confusion for many ordinary English-speaking people. Often, it seems, they just don't have any idea of what is being spoken about - unless it is specifically made clear that "Dao" = "Tao". This is not a matter of clarifying a simple noun - but making the name of a major religio-philosphical system clear.John Hill (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The article is not about a matter of confusion of there being two ways to romanise (spell) the word; it's about that there is an issue or controversy and that that controversy goes to the root of two streams of theology. So your concern is not dealt with by this page; it can be dealt with by a sentence or two on the Daoism page itself. sirlanz 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WikiBlame, this article never mentioned a "theological" issue. However, article content you deleted did mention issues of linguistics, lexicography, and Chinese borrowings, as we discussed in Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue#Sixty-two percent deletion? Keahapana (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but broaden or merge to already broader page. This is sufficiently sourced, but it is not really an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Rather, conflicting/shifting romanizations of Chinese names/terms more generally is the topic, including to what extent they're being assimilated and accepted by scholarly writers and the general public. E.g., Beijing has almost completely replaced Peking except in the context of certain food items (Peking duck), while the vast majority of published material on Mao Tse-tung, Lao Tzu, the Tao Te Ching, and other such matters (in English) still use those spellings, despite the preference of some for somewhat more phonetically accurate renderings like Mao Zedong, Laozi. and Daodejing. Indeed, the moving of our own articles toward the latter types of names is controversial and should probably be undone, because the results fail the WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy for most readers. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Tao/Dao in particular; it's just one example. The tidbit that at least one scholar is trying to draw a distinction between "real" Chinese Daoism and heavily Westernized "Taoism" is faintly interesting, but is insufficient to establish the Tao/Dao spelling divergence as a distinct encyclopedic topic from the broader class of such Chinese romanization matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC); updated: 15:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broader articles already exist, such as Romanization of Chinese for the general topic, Comparison of Chinese transcription systems for more detail on the differences between them, Standard Chinese phonology for the distinctive features of Chinese that make it hard to Romanise. Individual articles cover names like Beijing, Laozi, and of course Taoism. This is just one example and not an especially interesting one, unlike e.g. Beijing where earlier Romanisations reflect changes in language usage and the name of the city – see Names of Beijing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then the stub being AfDed can merge to one of those. There's no rationale to delete the sourced content from the encyclopedia entirely. It's not a good stand-alone page, while the material is in fact encyclopedically relevant and sourced well enough to keep it. I updated my !vote to account for a merge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and keep As seen here, this article's current contentious version is an evisceration of the last consensus version. I suggest reexamining or restoring the relevant, sourced content that was deleted before deciding what to do. Keahapana (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article conflates or confuses two things: the specific issue of how to write what is generally known in English as Taoism, with the general problem of different approaches to romanising Chinese in particular, and languages with a different set of aspiration/voicing distinctions. If all of these linguistic issues are included in this article, there would then be licence in principle for a corresponding article on the romanisation of any Chinese word known in English. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reasonably full discussion so far has resulted in no consensus, but has not yet been re-listed, and there is every reason to believe that further discussion could see a consensus develop.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an issue of indepdent encyclopedic importance. The whole issue of how to romanize this word can be covered in the article on the subject itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced. Deletion arguments that it's "just not notable" are not sufficient enough to warrant deletion.Egaoblai (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- if it’s a notable topic can you find a source where the "Daoism–Taoism romanization issue" is discussed in sufficient depth for notability ? As far as I can tell none of the sources discuss this "issue" at all, They just use one or the other, or perhaps both with the suggestion they are the same.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Carr (1990) in References discusses it in detail, but almost all of the content from this article was deleted. Come to think of it, should we restore the Lexicography section to better inform this AfD discussion? Keahapana (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is really more about what the accepted English spelling of a religion should be and why, rather than the actual process of romanisation. After over 150 years of use, "Taoism" has become the accepted standard spelling in English, with the pinyin transcription, "Daoism", only becoming an acceptable variant in recent times. See, for example, the entry on "Taoism" in the online (and up-to-date) version of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).John Hill (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to have !voted twice, which is against the rules. Please amend your second comment with an appropriate label like "Comment". ¶ Of course you are right that "Taoism" is an English word, and the accepted name of a religio-philosophic system whose name originates in the Chinese word written 道. I guess there is a campaign to rename it as "Daoism", based on a confusion between romanising a Chinese word or name (like Beijing) and trying to change English words based on different ways of writing part of them in the original language. As though we changed all -ation words to spell -azione, because of changes from Latin to modern Italian. But anyway, there really is no coherent "topic" here: alternative spelling of Taoism can be dealt with in Taoism, the difference between aspiration and voicing can be described in a linguistics article. And your comment here simply says nothing about why this article is needed. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks so much for pointing out that I should have headed my last note as a "comment" rather than as another attempt at voting. I hadn't realised that was what I was doing - so I have changed the heading as you suggested. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences[edit]

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

Dictionary definition Editor2020 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times, The New York Times, CNET. wumbolo ^^^ 15:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT#DICDEF encourages the deletion of articles that "cannot be expanded beyond a definition", but that is manifestly not the case here. Indeed, there's even been scholarly examination of the construction of condolences as speech acts (see this, from the Journal of English Studies). I'm pretty sure there's some comparative cultural analysis on the topic out there as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can easily expanded beyond just the definition. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Consensus seems to be that article has expansion potential. Editor2020 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1939 Kansas State Wildcats football team. Sandstein 08:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1939 Nebraska vs. Kansas State football game[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Its claim to notability is that it is the first homecoming football game televised. Homecoming games aren't especially notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~Delete~~ - Homecoming games can be very notable, especially before media and fast/easy transportation made following your team easier. But this game seems to me to fail NEVENT and certainly SPORTSEVENT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to Merge. After reading more recent !votes, I am indifferent between "merge and redirect" and "merge and delete" and agree the material should be in the pages on the teams from that year. I don't have an opinion on the correct redirect destination or if a redirect is necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT are "inclusive" and not "exclusive" -- meaning that they could be guidelines to determine notability of an sports event or other event as having passed, but certainly they are not infallible. Other guidelines still apply, such as the general notability guideline, and this subject clearly passes that measure with multiple third-party sources. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. All of the sourcing available appears routine - the available newspapers which can be viewed make no mention of the game's importance (the fact it was a televised homecoming game) - and therefore also fails WP:GNG. Multiple third-party sources could be found for pretty much any major college football game, but the available sourcing doesn't indicate why this game is any more notable than any other game. SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment feature articles (such as this one) about games are WP:NOTROUTINE and far beyond standard routine box scores.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree - the simple fact the game was the highlight game of the week in several papers does not make the coverage any less routine, nor does the article itself highlight this game as something unique to be documented. If there were feature articles about the game 10, 20, 50 years after the fact, I'd be inclined to agree with you. SportingFlyer talk 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP:ROUTINE guideline specifically defines routine coverage for sporting events as "sports scores" and excludes feature articles. It doesn't use the common definintion of "routine" but has specific measures. Otherwise, an argument could be made that "all coverage is routine"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately, WP:ROUTINE also says: Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. From the sources I've seen, this appears to be a routine sports match, even if it was the first to be televised - none of the contemporary news sources seem to make much of its notability in that regard, though (though, to be fair, television was lightly adopted at the time of the game). Most major college football games will meet WP:GNG, but Wikipedia is also not news, and GNG is only a presumption: most college football games are deleted per policy, with the best discussion on the subject being Cbl62's post in this AfD: [15] I don't see anything which suggests this game isn't routine, albeit high-profile for the time. SportingFlyer talk 01:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does say that. "May" is a key word and not "should" or "must" -- and the further definition of what would apply making that decision is the line "sports scores" and not feature articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1939 Kansas State Wildcats football team. This game isn't significant enough to warrant it's own stand-alone article, and there's a logical place for the information to go - the 1939 Kansas State season article which presently contains no details at all about this game. WP:PRESERVE, and all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the conclusion, then shouldn't we also duplicate the information for the 1939 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team?? It would make much more sense to have one article rather than duplicated content in two articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it was Kansas State's home game (and homecoming), it's much more relevant to their season article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's the answer (and I don't believe it is), do we then duplicate the information in College football on television? And to the other articles that link to this one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's already mentioned in that article, and I see no need to duplicate the information any further. SportingFlyer talk 02:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it mentioned... but the details are not provided because the other articles link to this article. This way, the details of the game and event are held in one article rather than three or ten or however many articles link to it. There's clearly enough information through current sources to create at least a good stub article (and more could be put in). And I disagree with the premise above that we have to wait 10, 20, or 50 years after an event to determine if it is notable or not. Nothing like that is listed in any of the guidelines that I have read.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with needing to wait as well, in general. The reason why this game is arguably notable/more than routine is because of the first televised homecoming game. Unfortunately, none of the contemporary sources provided have mentioned the reason for its notability. To them, it was just an important, albeit routine, game. It makes sense, television wasn't widespread at the time, but as a result I'd want to see that other sources have treated it notably after the fact. SportingFlyer talk 21:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say first that ignores the implication of the game for the outcome of the conference championship for the season, which the article and sources mention--but second, if the contemporary sources are necessary to indicate notability of an event long ago (such as this game) that implies that something once notable now is no longer notable. Yet a cornerstone of notability discussions is that "notability is not temporary." So that's where I get tied up seeing it differently.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I have a tangential question: Are there any sources that cover the event in-depth that were written more than a week before or after? Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I can find sources that mention the game, but all of the mentions save one are trivial. The non-trivial one recaps the contemporaneous article on the television broadcast: [16] There's also these trivial mentions I could find: [17] [18] [19] Notably (IMO), it's not mentioned here: [20]. There may be others? SportingFlyer talk 08:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT Kobra98 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ejgreen77 with 1939 Kansas State Wildcats football team. There is consensus among college football editors (reflected in College football single game notability discussion library) that coverage of regular season games is best handled in team/season articles except in rare cases where the game is truly historic or has enduring importance. This is not an issue of notability, but rather an issue of editorial judgment in how Wikipedia presents content about individual football games. Cbl62 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, too, that this was not a game that was broadcast to the public. As noted in this source found by SportingFlyer, the game was broadcast from the field to the stadium press box, as there were no other receiver sets in Lawrence at the time. Cbl62 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Manhattan, Kansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ejgreen77. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ejgreen77 – makes more sense to have it on the Kansas State article than its own standalone article. PCN 02 WPS 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn per WP:HEY. Clearly my search-fu was off. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet E. McKenna[edit]

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

For being such a prolific author, McKenna seems to live in a black hole as far as sourcing goes. Almost no GNews hits (just brief mentions or quotes), and the majority of what I'm finding on normal GSearch is interviews or one-paragraph bios along with a list of her works. I'm just not seeing any evidence that WP:AUTHOR (or WP:GNG) is met. I am happy to be proven wrong, though. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under WP:Author she has, as evidenced by the list of titles and her publishers, created a collective body of work which has had independent reviews. Also she is well known in the genre and well regarded, frequently invited to conventions as a guest. The first search I did using the links above returned results including nominations for awards for her work.Antiqueight (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's written fifteen novels and a load of short stories, all published by reputable publishers, and is well known in the SF fan community as a regular invited guest, occasional convention organiser and former Clarke Award judge. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Juliet E McKenna was awarded the Karl Edward Wagner Special Award at the British Fantasy Awards in 2015, in acknowledgment not only of her literary works but also her work in campaigning against the effects of VATMOSS on small traders and independent publishers and authors. ^[1] ^[2] There are also more recent works to be included in the bibliography, including a collection of short stories and a new Urban Fantasy novel. ^[3] ^[4] 82.35.151.6 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Steven Poore[reply]

References

^ http://www.julietemckenna.com/?cat=48
^ http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/british-fantasy-awards/bfawinners/
^ http://wizardstowerpress.com/books-2/books-by-juliet-e-mckenna/the-green-mans-heir/
^ http://wizardstowerpress.com/books-2/books-by-juliet-e-mckenna/shadow-histories-of-the-river-kingdom/

Keep – Believe she falls well within the guidelines; 1, 3 and 4 established under Author to be included here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look, she's mentioned by several newspapers, reviewers, associates etc Antiqueight (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Is Ms. McKenna in the same rarified atmosphere as a J.K. Rowling, no. But she is well respected in her field, received a prestige award and is a sought after speaker and judge in her specific genre, along with being covered in enough secondary, independent reliable sources to qualify for inclusion here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believe that given Pat O'Shea only wrote three books in her lifetime (only one of which was of any note) and Juliet E. McKenna has written significantly more than that, and more regularly, and is still writing, then there shouldn't be a problem. I have no problems finding her articles, and if others have a problem then maybe it's not on her to sort out; it's not as if Pat supplied evidence...^[1] DokiChan ^Talk 17:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9638283.Science_Fiction_convention_Eastercon_heading_for_Bradford/

Keep popular author. In light of Primefac's reasonable point, I did add a bit of literary criticism form the reviewer for the Financial Times to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to register a !Vote in this discussion, mainly because I know Juliet a little. But I observe that, with the exception of Shoessss, not one of the "Keep" comments above attempts to address the special meaning of "notability" as used by Wikipedia, which is about what has been written about the subject, not what the subject has done. Stephen Poore has mentioned some things she has done, but none of the references he gives are independent. Shoesss is arguing based on the alternative criteria specified in NAUTHOR; but they too require (independent) references, which have not so far been forthcoming. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again. I have both argued under a policy point and updated her page with reliable sources showing her to have notability. If you have an issue with sources there please let me know so I can find something else or discuss the point specifically.Antiqueight (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I added the Bradford Telegraph and Argus post but it appears to have gone to the bottom of this set of comments. If someone could make sure that goes in the right place...? DokiChan ^Talk DokiChan (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this, thank you for looking. (BTW keep of course, passes WP:NAUTHOR). Thincat (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Pallewatta[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib, I have not finish making this article yet, and it was only created yesterday - LionCountry25 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in multiple, independent sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Democratic Party of Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient evidence provided to support the individual’s notability in their own article. If not redirected then at this stage it should be deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have updated more information on this page and used more references. talk) This is not a political biography at this stage! - LionCountry25 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Dan arndt above. - ක - (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO nor WP:NPOL. I don't a reason to redirect a BLP name to a political party; he may change affiliations, while the redirect will linger. There's nothing valuable in the article history, so a straight "delete" is the preferable option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changing my comment to ‘delete‘ concur with K.e.coffman political preferences may change and of further examination the Social Democratic Party of Sri Lanka is not a registered political party and may not even be notable if no candidates stand in any future elections. Dan arndt (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The HAARP Machine[edit]

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

A7 non notable band, also not a single source on the page and also redundant and unnecessary to be on wikipedia because they’re already featured on encyclopedic sites like Metal Archives. no clue why this band with only one album has to be here. Second Skin (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator has cited the "A7" guideline incorrectly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning the Masses for more detail. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that it was a criteria solely for "speedy deletions", but as a guideline for anything regarding non-notable music articles. Forgive me Second Skin (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - They had a (briefly) charting album at Billboard: [21], and a few brief articles in media sources that have been deemed sufficient elsewhere in WP: for example Metal Injection [22] and Metal Sucks [23]. That gets them kind of close to the music notability guidelines but I think they need some more significant coverage. Might change my vote to the positive if editors can find anything better. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Brought to you by deletion as a service. Sandstein 11:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transistor as a service[edit]

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

Nothing found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no book or GScholar hits => not notable. Mangoe (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is probably supposed to be promotional for something, but it's so poorly written and referenced I can't tell what. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Japanese community of Shanghai. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, but there's no consensus as to whether to delete or merge. Redirecting it to the one place where it is mentioned is a compromise. Editors need to determine whether to merge any content from the history, and where to. Sandstein 12:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taminato incident[edit]

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

I think it's time this is revisited. The last AFD back in 2012 ended in "no consensus", but the reason for that was largely that JoshuSasori hadn't been site-banned for hounding me yet (I was the nominator, and in retrospect it was obvious that that was the only reason he commented) and CurtisNaito (the article's original creator, and a virulent anti-Chinese POV-pusher - that's relevant) had not been topic-banned and left the project yet. Apart from those two, it was 7-2 in favour of deletion.

Basically the article was created to push the idea that the Sino-Japanese War was provoked by anti-Japanese violence on the part of the Chinese, and the only modern sources (as opposed to contemporary newspapers) that discuss the topic as anything worthy of note are from Japanese far-right ideologues. The current version is toned down from the original 2012 version, but it still doesn't demonstrate notability: virtually all of the sources are still either newspapers from 1936 or revisionist works by Japanese rightists (who aren't even professional historians): titles like "支那事変作戦日誌" and "日本とシナ:1500年の真実" are clear markers of revisionist, anti-Chinese works, and 文藝春秋 is hardly a bastion of liberal thought. (I know we shouldn't judge books by their titles, but by default we should generally assume sources are not reliable; these Japanese titles are roughly equivalent to On the Waging of the War of Northern Aggression and Saracens and the West, a History: The Truth that You're Not Being Told, and those books would have an uphill battle to be taken seriously on RSN.) The only sources for which this is not true are the ones currently numbered 4, 19 and 20, of which 4 and 20 are cited for innocuous content not related directly to the assassination of Taminato, and assuming 19 is cited correctly and not misrepresented it demonstrates the notability of Wang Yaqiao, not this topic.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) to Battle of Shanghai or Shanghai International Settlement. It seems this incident served a propaganda purpose, has some coverage as a propaganda piece (e.g. [24], [25], [26] - and led to increased Japanese armed deployment in the city (martial law, state of emergency). A series of similar incidents were the pretext for the battle of Shanghai.Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my !vote on selective merge - I think we could have a paragraph to two under a subsecrion (level3 or 4) in Battle of Shanghai - whatever passes V after some NPOVing.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps a future article at this title could discuss the propaganda angle, but the current article seems to fail WP:V (per nominator and after looking for modern sources) and doesn't discuss that angle. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The subject constitutes a notable chapter in the history of the Second Sino-Japanese War. On this, both sides in the conflict agree: At the time, the Chinese side claimed the incidents were no more than random murders committed by individuals and should not affect relations with Japan; Japan claimed they were an act of intentional provocation by China or at best deliberate lack of protection of Japanese citizens. The intent to engage in propaganda does not affect the merits of a subject as far as Wikipedia is concerned, provided the subject is presented in the appropriate, encyclopaedic manner. We have articles on subjects of pure propaganda, such as Triumph of the Will.

Incidents within a conflict need exceptional notability in order to have an article created about them. But the Taminato incident, along with similar ones, are what ostensibly gave the Japanese side the legitimacy of their subsequent actions that led to the Battle of Shanghai. It seems important enough to merit its own, separate text. If not a separate article (as we have on the Marco Polo Bridge Incident or the Gulf of Tonkin incident), then an account under the section "Prelude" of the Battle of Shanghai article. And if the text in this article is indeed promoting bias of some kind or other, i.e. "anti-China" sentiments, as the nom claims, we can and should work on it; not delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: You say we can and should work on it, but have you located any sources that would allow us to do so without engaging in original research? In more than five years no one has been able to do so, and there was a pretty strong consensus in the last AFD (undermined only by two disruptive editors who have long since been banned) that this incident seems only to be played up by unreliable revisionist works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this incident be wiped out entirely from the Wikipedia articles? -The Gnome (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. There’s a reason I responded to you but not Icewhiz, whose comment essentially amounted to “redirect now, figure out what can be merged later”, even though the sources they found were basically useless at least based on the GBooks snippet views. You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing for the page to be kept mostly intact, either by keeping in the short term or copying over the full text or close to it in the long term, even without modern reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Wenzel-Halls[edit]

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

An editor dePRODed, he said the player plays in A-league, but there is no evidence that he has an appearance, so still WP:NFOOTBALL Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is just transferred to A-League team (Brisbane) in this May. Meanwhile 2018-19 A-League will start in October 2018. So in my opinion, surely now he has not fulfilled NFOOTBALL. This article creation might be premature, better to create it after he plays a debut for Brisbane.--Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify He might pass WP:GNG already as apparently he was a sensation at the second tier, and the signing by Brisbane Roar seems to be a full contract, not merely a trial. I've seen a few such articles moved to draft space or even kept outright when it seems likely the player will play at fully professional level within a few months. I added citations to the article, and there are plenty more sources. Tell me what you think. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Just a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NFOOTBALL. Draftify is proper due to the high likelihood of his satisfying notability guidelines in the near future. SportingFlyer talk 08:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Currently doesn't fulfull WP:NFOOTY but will most likely make an appearance in the fully-pro A-League in the upcoming season. --SuperJew (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Doesn't satisfy WP:NFOOTY, but probably will soon.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no guarantee he will ever play for Brisbane Roar. Simione001 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My thinking is that it would be effectively in probation for six months as a draft, and will be speedy deleted as a matter of course if no edits in that time. If Wenzel-Hall gets a game within the first couple of months of 2018-19 season, it will be a "keep" under WP:NFOOTY (and I expect WP:GNG because he seems to be a media favorite); if he stays in reserves or on the bench, it will be a "delete" unless the draft creator can make a good GNG case. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A11, G10) (non-admin closure) Pratyush (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shailender Singh (Milton Keynes Wale)[edit]

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

Either a hoax or an attempt to bolster the biography of a non-notable person with the works of another person. The Selected Filmography section is copied from Shailendra Singh (singer). Count Count (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of any reliable sources on the net makes me believe this is a hoax. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: fails WP:GNG and very much a hoax, I would think... descriptions of him being a "geriatric" at only 45 years old, supposedly releasing his first album at the age of 1, stating that he has worked for many "world renowned organisations" and then failing to mention a single one, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (possibly Speedy Delete #G3 as vandalism/hoax). An exercise in creative writing to see if anyone notices. Well we did notice. Note that the IMDb link in "External Links" points to the real person of the same name (the gentleman noticed by the nominator above), and see also the fake categories at the bottom on the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems to be a joke article. Proof

...is an Indo-British omniscient geriatric, presently based in the world famous town of Milton Keynes. He has worked for many world reknowned organizations and single handedly led to their growth (and sometimes lack of it) in the UK.
...has many amazing inventions to his credit, apart from having enhanced the (non) working culture in numerous organizations, both in India and the UK. He holds the distinction of being one of the very few sales people to have risen the ranks in an organization despite having net sales of 0 repeatedly. Its his charm and wit that swoons the organizations.
A passionate member of the RSS, Chacha ( as he is commonly known among friends), always insists on wearing a naade wala kachchha ( striped underpants tied with a string).

This is enough to show that it is a joke.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged it for speedy deletion, just in case there really is someone with the same name. It would be against our BLP to allow this article with such unsubstantiated claims to remain on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of superheroes and villains without superpowers[edit]

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

Unclear what the point of this article is, it's certainly not relevant to anyone besides dedicated comic fans, making it WP:FANCRUFT. Not to mention that many or most of these characters still have unrealistic abilities even if they don't have mystical superpowers, like, say, being a cyborg. It seems arbitrary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article does not cite any sources, which makes it a possible WP:OR. However, such lists are found in various places - [27][28][29][30], therefore may qualify under WP:LISTN. It nevertheless still needs to be sourced and tidied up. Hzh (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unsourceable WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR. The inclusion criteria are not actually unclear, but the article attracts editors unwilling or unable to follow them and is an endless maintenance nightmare. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what chaos5023 said about the ongoing maintenance problem. Vadder (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia can not host a debate on how to define "superhero" (whether the definition can include those without "superpowers") we would be left looking at "List of all fictional heroes and villians without superpowers" which would be a pointless and enormously long list. -Haikon 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too broadly defined and too fluid. Batman, for example, has gained temporary superpowers several times. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amsterdams Lyceum. Sandstein 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The O.L.O. ( Old Student Organisation, The Amsterdams Lyceum)[edit]

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

Not notable as standalone organization. Should be merged into Amsterdams Lyceum. Count Count (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the O.L.O. is notable, but if Count Count wants to merge the content, as an alternative to deletion, they may want to propose a merge, not deletion. In any case, perhaps they can specify which content they think can be merged. (See Wikipedia:Delete or merge) Vexations (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the information that I think is relevant to Amsterdams Lyceum#Alumni association.--Count Count (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amsterdams Lyceum with no merge needed. This is just an alumni association that does alumni association things. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Technology[edit]

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

Launching AFD for Zigzig20s, who should put in the reason. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to pass GNG. The article is mostly unreferenced. The company was acquired by the Incipio Group in 2016, with only 150 employees.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. It's possible that Griffin PowerMate is not notable either. Both seem to be promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- seemingly run of the mill company that fails WP:NCORP and most glaringly WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage. Note that the first AfD hinged on a propsal to re-write that article, but that was carried out before NCORP was significantly strengthened. Prognosis is not good (in my mind) for this article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that these articles are notable in their own right and a merge is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Fox (Italy)[edit]

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

Unsourced list. Original research. We already have List of programs broadcast by Fox and all the region networks offer similar programming so we don't need separate articles for each region. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the exact same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You realize Fox is an American broadcast network, right? These lists are rarely going to fully match List of programs broadcast by Fox because of licensing and completely different audience focuses (European Fox networks are outside a couple exceptions, narrowly-targeted cable networks, not wide-audience broadcast channels; Turkey alone has mostly domestic content that rarely matches their other Fox sisters). Until you clarify and specify why exactly these articles should be deleted besides 'we have a list of Fox programs already' and hoping that discussions won't click on that article and find they're completely different, I can't support this nomination. It's too vague and you should be looking into other avenues like a merge of the European Fox articles before coming here. Nate • (chatter) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American broadcast, the USA is where the network originates from. However looking at the list of shows there are a high number of similarities across all five articles. Plus there is zero sources, so I'm labelling it as WP:OR. Since when it WP:V not a requirement for Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish one is the only one that appears different, but then again it could just be equivalent shows dubbed. 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I understand V, but you're asking us to nominate an article based on the existence of a network with a completely different business model. The Euro Fox cable networks have to program all 168 hours of a week. The American broadcast Fox only programs at minimum (without sports programming) fourteen hours per week. A basic understanding of American and European broadcasting, along with broadcast and cable models is needed, and you can't compare the American network to European networks in any way outside of 'in name' and shows from TCF Television. And as I ask all deletionists; why not source these things rather than asking for deletion? If you have time to create deletion noms, you have time to source things too. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the nominator to explain more why they think this information is unverifiable/OR. If the claim was based solely on the present lack of sources in the article, without consideration as to whether such sources exist, then this would be their opportunity to recant that particular argument. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing the WP:V/WP:OR topic any further (and yes articles like this should not exist if they can't be verified), but two other things. First WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that distinguishes a list of original programming to an arbitrary list of every single programme broadcast on a channel. The other concern is notability, given that we already have a list for the Fox network's country of origin. Even though it's broadcast in several regions around the world, it's essentially repeated stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked you to explain or elaborate on your claim that this was unverifiable/OR. You instead responded by repeating unrelated arguments. So I still have no idea why you think this list is unverifiable/OR. Have you abandoned that claim? postdlf (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without any verification I stand by my statement that this is OR. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, based purely on the present lack of sources in the article. Do you think that's consistent with policy and deletion procedure? postdlf (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have articles where any can contribute but not verify any of the content they add? Should that not apply to entire articles?? You already know my answer to that. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question in a deletion nomination is whether it can be verified, not whether it already has. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I understand that some people may think that this article isn't notable, as there is already a section for FOX, but having this article allows for clear specialization and diversification of which can better match the content it is referencing. SuperChris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it with referencing. Without reliable, indepth coverage this is just a spin-off list of unverified fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly what people would use an online encyclopedia for. It's shabby now, but eventually, some editors will make the content comprehensive, make it a readable and useful table, etc. Incidentally, the AfD boxes for those other articles that the nominator mentioned (Lists for Foxes Turkey, Asia & Latin America) all link to this AfD. -Haikon 23:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly encyclopedic though. It's lists of TV shows, with no sources attached they are unreliable and have no evidence of notability. There is already a List of programs broadcast by Fox which should be sufficient enough to cover all regional broadcasts. All four are bundled into one AFD which is perfectly legitimate. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tatum Chiniquy[edit]

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

I came across this article in my process of dispersing the contents of Category:American Latter-day Saints to state subcats. My first reaction was "this article no where says that Chiniquy is a Latter-day Saint" so I removed that unsourced category. Then I went looking for more information. I did come across the information that she is a student at Brigham Young University, where over 95% of the students are Latter-day Saints. The Deseret News article does not actually explicitly say what religion Chiniquy is, but I suspect she is a Latter-day Saint both just because she goes to BYU and also because of some of the things she is quoted as saying in the article, but nothing there verifies it for sure. The article however is not really about Chiniquy, it is about the couple whose daughter Chiniquy portrayed in Love, Kennedy. Even if Love, Kennedy is a notable film, which I am less than convinced of, that would still not lead Chiniquy to pass the notability guidelines for actresses, sicne that would be her only significant role in a notable film. She is probably no older than 20 at present, so she may yet become notable, but her acting career until now just does not add up to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any question that Love, Kennedy is notable. It's gotten lots of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Her other roles aren't starring and are in TV movies, including at least one we have an article for. This subject would best be covered in an article on her starring role at this point. A few sentences would seem to me to suffice. No such article exists as of yet. What to do? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a big fan of TC Christensen's work, I am glad to hear Love, Kennedy is notable. Still, as I said above, that does not propel Chiniquy to notability, since we need multiple significant roles in notable productions, and at present we have one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NACTOR. We may love the person but we have to refer to policy. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin O'Beirne[edit]

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

Stumbled upon this article tonight and it felt a bit promotional given his blog and personal sites are linked. I checked the references and didn't see anything that would pass WP:GNG so I ran a WP:BEFORE search. He's got a couple articles comparing Apple Maps to Google Maps, but I really don't think he passes WP:GNG. Article was also created by user Piemonte, and then user Sugarbeef edited the article - Sugarbeef has made few edits except for this article and for Patrick Piemonte, which I'm also a bit suspicious of in terms of a possible COI. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with nom, there are a number of articles where Beirne compares Google Maps with Apple Maps, but I do not find sources about that we could build a BLP upon. Fails BASIC/GNG, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitation water vortex power plant[edit]

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

Every reason to believe that this is a self-promotion advertisement article that is created by the very proponents of a technology product that has dubious citations and barely any technically plausible and viable explanations. Please also note that the commons images accompanying are uploaded apparently by the same person whose 'creation' the article is describing about. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 06:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I almost AfDed this myself some months ago, when I first saw it. However looking further, it seems to be a credible device and worthy of inclusion here. It's a real device: they've been built, they work. They're not (despite the appearance of the word "vortex") some woo-woo science nonsense based on the lost writings of Tesla. They even have aspects to their build simplicity and low cost where they show advantages over other more factory-made run of the river hydro designs. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just searched for mentions of the Subject matter on Google Scholar and there is some brief reference (by brief I mean I didn't go into the articles themselves rather went over what the context was) of the apparatus and it's technology. It seems that this is more than self promotion, maybe just a poorly written and cited article? Thelost byte (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These exist, they are in use, and they have been the topic of a fair amount of published research [31]. One can see some repeated names among those authors, but that's the case in most specialized tech research areas. Article could use some love and some of these refs, but doesn't strike me as promotional at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should probably contain some practical information on uses so that it is more clear that this is not just a concept, but it does have encyclopedic value. Natureium (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the unfortunate fact that the device's legitimately descriptive name reads like pseudoscience Mad Libs, this is a real thing, and has received more than passing attention in scholarly sources. It has even been included in a comparative technology review in Applied Energy, which is easily one of the major titles in the field. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley Day[edit]

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

non notable--no significant roles. refs are PR DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are just from gossip sites. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your info, GMA Network and ABS-CBN are not gossip sites. They are the biggest Television network here in the Philippines. User:Mmhuang (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the material cited at ABS-CBN is celebrity gossip, as confirmed by reading the articles. The only way to really judge references is to actually ead them. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and MT Train. Can't find in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources which shows she meets WP:GNG, and fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement Labs[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. RF23 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. I see one, the Toronto Star. The penny stock ref tends to decrease my belief in its notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I'm not convinced by the Toronto Star article. The company is not the subject matter of the article and only gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill technology company with zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Since the company floated on the Toronto Venture exchange, there's a chance that the company was covered by independent analysts which would then help the topic meet the criteria for notability, but I can't find any. Therefore as it stands, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cavallini[edit]

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

Re-creation of an article previously deleted by PROD with rationale Promotional article about a non-notable person. Forbes contributed posts are not reliable sources. The Forbes reference is gone, but the article is still promotional and the references don't suggest GNG is met; including a HuffPo contributed piece and "Newswire" (which looks like fake news). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having notable people among your customers is not a sign of notability. That is about all this overly promotional article has on Cavallini. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be ways to get sponsorship from athletes for your product.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He gets a little mention here, here, and here, but that's about all. Fails GNG/BASIC for now. Sam Sailor 19:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is one of several articles nominated with the exact same boilerplate rationale, and the consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shigga Shay[edit]

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be another of the nominator's apparently indiscriminate nomination for deletion given that local significance is clearly notable per WP:BAND. Coverage of the artist is actually national, significant and in major publications - e.g. [32][33][34][35] and more, which should qualify him under WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the sources currently in the article are unreliable and need to be replaced, but a good faith before search would have easily helped identify notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is one of several articles nominated with the exact same boilerplate rationale. The consensus is to keep and fix. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra of the Music Makers[edit]

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article clearly satisfy WP:BAND #1 and WP:GNG with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The claim that the coverage being merely local is a strange one, I have not heard of the requirement for international coverage given that WP:BAND specifically allows for local significance. In any case, there are numerous sources in what is the biggest and perhaps the most important newspaper of Singapore, e.g. [36][37][38], there are also international coverage from outside Singapore [39][40]. They have also played outside Singapore - e.g. at Cheltenham Music Festival - [41]. If there is any issue with the article, then try to fix it, rather than trying to delete an article that has clear notability. Note however that this appears that this is just one of a number of identical and apparently indiscriminate nominations by the same person, so I'm not sure if the claim of bias has any substance in it. Hzh (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. The article already demonstrates the subject's notability, as Hzh demonstrates above. The tone of the current version is promotional in parts, and needs attention, but that should be addressed by editing, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Military Commander of the Bundesheer[edit]

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

An "official post" (per the infobox) that doesn't exist. The phrase "Inhaber der Befehls- und Verfügungsgewalt" does not appear in any of the relevant statutes (B-VG, BMG, WG 2001), in any other statute or court opinion (RIS), in any of the standard textbooks (Adamovich et al., Brauneder, Öhlinger), or in any other literature (Ngram, Google Scholar, JSTOR). It has exactly one Google hit: the Wikipedia article itself. "Supreme Military Commander of the Bundesheer", the purported translation, is also unattested (Ngram, Google Scholar, JSTOR). Its four Google hits all lead back to the article. The two sources cited in the article actually contradict it: they confirm that what is being described is just one of several hats the Austrian Minister of Defense is wearing. Kramler (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the title exists, I don't find any evidence of it in English or German (with similar efforts to the nom). The Ministry of Defense article should and does describe most of the duties of the post, and while duties similar to those described here are included, this title does not seem to be a part of it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. Kierzek (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per dewiki most of the details in the article more or less do actually seem to check out, yet, basically this article describes an authority that the German defense minister has, and I do not see use of the article's title or the German title in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both "keep" opinions do not actually cite the sources they assert exist. Sandstein 09:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Thomas Barranger[edit]

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

County executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass GNG? outside of an obituary, there's a clear lack of reliable sources here.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Here" as in the WP article? gidonb (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there, here, or anywhere else.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my research, I found sufficient reliable sources for keeping under the WP:GNG. Given the time, I'll try to add some to the article. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll see.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't put in much yet. There is so much more. In any case, what counts are the sources "out there", not "in here". gidonb (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you want to put the work in to add the sources to the article, now would be a great time to share them with everyone (even by just posting links here). It's easy to claim "there are sources" without actually providing them.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough research is never easy. Nominating and skipping the WP:GNG is easy! Serially dropping delete opinions, such as one participant below, including one of the most decorated German actresses -- that's easy! At WP we have a class of serial nominators who nominate articles and support nominations without sufficient references in the texts, instead of tagging {{cn}}, {{references}}, and {{refimprove}}. They claim to have looked at other sources but the amount and depth that is out there often makes one wonder.[42] The importance of the people or organizations at hand often makes one wonder.[43] I do not think it is a fair expectation from those who disagree with deletions to reference any article at hand, whether at AFDs or elsewhere. It takes a lot of time to do this right.[44] If all can check and provide their opinions then all can do this. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb:Until you actually produce sources, I am going to continue to assume that they do not exist. Accusing me and others of not doing searches is both uncivil and a waste of time. Somehow you have the time to dig through old AfDs to critize but linking to sources is too much work for you. I did a search and found basically nothing, so did everyone else so far. So I'll ask again, if you found sources, may we please see them? Is that too much to ask? The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide the sources, not on us to prove that they do not exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered all that above. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't, I'm still waiting to see the sources. You're either withholding the sources which is really pointless and childish OR they don't exist. Either way, telling us sources exist, but refusing to provide them is a bad faith act.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Newspapers.com has a dozen articles on him starting in 1978 through the 1980s as well as multiple obits from various outlets. --RAN (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the county executive has died in 2011, there are no WP:BLP concerns here. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency towards recentism, so we should cherish our articles on historic politicians. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as typical local coverage of a local politician. Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I do not understand the keep votes above. The best sources I can find on him were articles involving his year's probation for violating elections laws [45] [46], information which isn't currently in the article. There was an article which mentioned him from Idaho, but it was only a short quote showing how the Washington metro area was rationing gasoline. Right now we have four sources, two from the same website; one is his obituary, another is primary, the other two a campaign database website. While there was significant coverage for his crime, there's nowhere near enough here to get him past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 08:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What is needed is broad coverage that goes above and beyond what would be found about any politician. I can find this or more coverage of the first directly elected figure head mayor we had in my city of 135,000 people. A few articles here and there on a local politician in a newspaper that covers the area he lives in is not a show of notability, it is what is expected. However having long followed these debates on local politicians even that is often not what is brought up. In the case of Richard Notte the keep faction was trying to use articles about the redevelopment of a large automotive assembly plant that named dropped Notte as one of the members of the city council involved in tax incentive plans to create this outcome, without telling us anything more about Notte that he held the title of mayor, that was not the level of indepth coverage neeeded to pass GNG. For too long those who say "the person passes GNG", have assumed that having an article published in a newspaper with your name mentioned in it constituted a pass of GNG. Well it does not, and so unless we can see the actual claimed substantive articles used and linked to in the Wikipedia article, we should go ahead and delete over these boys who cried wolf, I mean GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles B. Anderson Jr.[edit]

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

County executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. With the exception of an obituary (which alone does not establish notability), the sourcing is not reliable either. Rusf10 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or preferably redirect: I think the proper thing to do would be to create a Harford County Executive page and merge this information into it, but that page as far as I can tell does not exist, so I'm defaulting to delete. The post itself is probably notable, but doesn't have a page yet. Anderson does not pass WP:NPOL, does not otherwise appear to be notable, and all of the information on the page would fit nicely into a page about the position itself. SportingFlyer talk 07:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert this biography into the position. --RAN (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being a county executive is not a default sign of notablity, no other way to notablity here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as pointed out above, a county executive fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. They also fail WP:SIGCOV.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging Gentle Bones discography back into the parent article can likely be done boldly per WP:MERGEINIT. The split done on 9 June 2017 was unattributed. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Bones[edit]

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

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

Keep, and maybe merge the discography. A couple of points:

There is no requirement for regional or international coverage to pass notability criteria. The likes of Straits Times and Bandwagon are good enough for a Singaporean. As it happens, the BBC also think he counts as news.(Gentle Bones: Singapore's answer to Ed Sheeran)

Bias and promotional tone should be removed from articles, but are not a valid reason for deletion.

- William Avery (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is another one of a number of identical and indiscriminate nominations by the same person who did not make any searches before nomination that is required per WP:BEFORE. The coverage of the artist can be found in sources within Singapore and outside Singapore, [47][48][49][50] (Singapore), [51] (UK),[52] (Hong Kong). Hzh (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, but after a before search - article could be improved to reflect notability. SportingFlyer talk 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Latency[edit]

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

Another band where it seems to me as an admitted outsider to the entire field there is insufficient sourcing for WMUSIC DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only potential claim to passing WP:NMUSIC here is the chart positions attained by the single "Tonight, I Love You", but those completely fail to verify in a Billboard search. And Billboard is the only acceptable or notability-conferring chart provider for Canada's "Hot 100" or "Hot AC" charts in the 21st-century, because both RPM and The Record were long gone by 2009 — so if they don't verify in Billboard then there's no other acceptable chart to "rectify" them to. And since bands and musicians quite routinely try to curveball their way around our notability standards by claiming to have had bigger chart hits than they ever really did, it's not the claim of a chart position that gets a band into Wikipedia but the ability to verify that the claimed chart position is actually true. And this is not referenced to reliable sources that get the band past NMUSIC #1, either — it's referenced entirely to primary sources, with zero evidence of media coverage about them being shown at all, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm going to simplify matters by withdrawing it. I will stay in my own areas for a while. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Räfven[edit]

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

Not my field, but it seems no notable records of presence in significant films/ DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ leaning to change to Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #3 "nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". What overall relevance does the single argument "no notable records of presence in significant films" have in an article about a band? Would nom please clarify? Remotely WP:BAND #10, yes, but that is quite irrelevant when we have sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and I could go on. All these are bylined intitle: Gnews hits. Plenty more is out there on this band. And we are already well above GNG. Sam Sailor 12:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep hopefully under SKCRIT#1 as withdrawn. I begin to think that the combination of sources that would easily have been found and the unusual deletion rationale could indicate that it is the wrong article that got tagged here. Was it meant for an actor stub? That would have been more befitting. Sam Sailor 07:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a combination of a/ no significant recordings, and b/ that the presence in the two films in the final paragraph did not lead to notability because those films were not significant. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how no notable records of presence in significant films can be understood as no significant recordings. But the SNG subsection WP:BAND is a descriptive list of criteria that indicate a band may be notable for inclusion if one or more criterion is met. It is not a list of criteria that indicate exclusion if one or more criterion is not met. So to turn it upside-down and argue "because their films/recordings are not significant, the band is not notable" is a flaw in deductive reasoning. Let's discuss notability looking at existing sources. Why were none added as part of WP:ATD prior to nomination? Why are they ignored when presented here? Sam Sailor 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an IAR close, it's a combination fo G11 and G12 as the only remaining content on the page is copied over from University of Madras, with nothing at all pertaining to this place. —SpacemanSpiff 11:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal Tamil University[edit]

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

No claim in article of meeting notability, google search not turning up notability. However, sources for this school are likely not in English which hampers my efforts to improve this article, so I'm asking for others to weigh in. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sources are,as you say,probably in Tamil, there';s no way to do a proper BFORE search withotu knowing the languages. We do however need to find some verification. As a university, it would normally be kept just as 99% of all universities have been, but only if we can do that. WP:N is subject to arguments; WP:V is absolutely required. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have deleted this as G11 (and I'm still inclined to do it) as we are providing brochure content that isn't even on their website. This is likely a corner shop that does coaching for college admissions but has decided to call itself a university. It wasn't in the list of deemed universities published by the UGC a few months ago. Their main campus is a store front on a road that is 20ft wide! A university and they can't afford a landline! This is just peddling of dubious services using Wikipedia. —SpacemanSpiff 11:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Villanova University. Sandstein 09:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WVTV (Villanova)[edit]

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

College tv station, fails WP:ORG. The article seems just to be WP:OR and promotional. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R to related topic}} to Villanova University, the station broadcasts only on-campus and fails [[WP:NME]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yale Daily News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yale TV[edit]

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

College tv station, does not pass WP:ORG. The article currently has no independent sources. It makes the claim that one of its programs has had extensive media coverage, but no references are provided. Doing a search, I've been unable to find these sources either. If someone can prove that the show received in-depth coverage in the Los Angeles Times as stated, I'll withdraw the nomination. Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yale Daily News, the organization that operates the TV station.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, as it is directly connected Atlantic306 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as the station fails [[WP:NME]]/[[WP:GNG]], a merger to Yale Daily News is fine, if contents are verified. A subsequent redirect can be categorized as an {{R to related topic}}/{{R from merge}}. Sam Sailor 18:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Was rewritten as a list article during the AfD. Deleting that would need a separate discussion. Sandstein 09:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthurs Lake[edit]

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

Non-notable lake. The Cebuano and Swedish articles, according to Google Translate, consist solely of statistics. A plain search points to a MacArthur's Lake hotel in Kansas, and a search for "macarthurs lake nova scotia" turned up virtually nothing about the lake except that it exists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm usually a strong believer in digging up obscure sources to rescue these minor GEOLAND articles, but this isn't going to be one of those times. The lake in question is about 200m by 75m, if that, and – unsurprisingly – I'm unable to find reliable information other than raw statistical data. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete the revised article, as a nonstandard disambiguation page with no bluelinked topics. Don't get me wrong, I think the restructured article is both informative and nicely assembled, but I just don't see where it's permitted by our rules for disambiguation pages or stand-alone lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact five blue-linked topics: Lake McArthur, McArthur Lake, Northwest Territories, McArthur Lake, Ontario, Lac McArthur and McArthur Lake, Idaho. A disambiguation page is surely warranted. A sourced list is preferable in this case, based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria: "... one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles... Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) ...". This list is short, complete, and could be useful for a reader looking for information on one of these lakes, whether or not it has its own article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my alternate proposal below, i.e. to use a proper disambiguation page which I have drafted. Vote for this with "Merge" vote.--Doncram (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have turned it into a sort of disambiguation page. Maybe some of these lakes deserve an article of their own. I see no reason to delete: it is well-sourced and is not promotional or controversial. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per below. Was ~~Keep~~ the greatly revised list-article / disambiguation page, at this point. However it is not technically compliant with disambiguation page guidelines, as for example it includes sources which are obviously relevant for establishing notability but are not allowed at all in disambiguation pages. I don't think a list-article on "lakes with MacArthur in their name" is a good topic for Wikipedia; I think it should be modified to be a simple disambiguation page. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a valid structure. It would help someone looking for information about Lake McArthur, maybe not quite sure how it is spelled or exactly where it is. It gives useful information, even if some of the lakes are not particularly notable, and encourages browsing. Quite often an AfD outcome is "redirect to a list". This is the list. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't care particularly. I have created lots of list-articles, including really broad ones like List of Presbyterian churches. "Presbyterian churches" is a valid topic for a "standalone list" though, e.g. there will be some books/articles about architecture of Presbyterian churches. While there are no sources discussing the topic "lakes with McCarthur or MacCarthur in their name". No readers are looking to read about the topic. It can serve a disambiguating function only, and I think it should be stripped down to do just that, with no entertainment added. Again i am not going to strip it myself or engage in further disagreement even, but don't be surprised if/when others do. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for the official guidance. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It meets Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria as a "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" that could be useful (e.g., for navigation). I agree that few readers will want information on the broad topic of "Lakes called McArthur", but it may help a reader find out about a specific lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section "Common selection criteria" is about what items to include, if a list topic is already deemed acceptable. The guideline has less/different guidance than I thought it did about acceptable topics; it has been revised over the years. To repeat: the current list would be viewed as unacceptable by most editors. It would be perfectly fine for anyone to open an AFD about this current article. Seems silly to wait to let this close, covering the non-acceptability of the former article about one tiny lake, just to reopen an AFD about the current list. At this point, facing defiance about an inappropriate list being kept in mainspace, maybe I should be changing my "!vote" to "Delete". Or maybe I should just edit-war it into a disambiguation page. Ugh. --Doncram (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sourced list. Thanks to ~~Doncram~~ Aymatth2 for the work. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting my stupidity: Aymatth2. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be a disambiguation page like Long Lake, Round Lake, Abel Lake, all other "lake" examples in Category:Place name disambiguation pages. To try to be constructive and so that this AFD will settle the matter, I have started building a proper disambiguation page, drafting now at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate1. I request that the AFD be closed "Merge", i.e. for the material in the current list-article (which is not a valid standalone list) to be merged to this replacement disambiguation page and/or merged to corresponding pages like Hattah, Victoria. So, for example,

MacArthur's Lake (Victoria), a lake near Hattah, Victoria, Australia

is now a valid entry in a disambiguation page, as it includes a redlink and a supporting bluelink (the link to Hattah, an article which now contains the Macumber source and information from it). This complies with MOS:DABRL. The disambiguation page is not to include any sources or photos. It will just have (about 5) bluelinks to existing pages and also some redlinks where an item is supported as done for this one.

Similar work needs to be done to defend any other items in the disambiguation page. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see a more realistic version of the proposed disambiguation page without redlinks to articles that will never be written. What would be lost? What would the benefits be? The immediate question is whether the page McArthur Lake should be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this version is a "clean" disambiguation page. User:Aymatth2 can add more redlink items to it if they would like to, if they believe that an article is needed and if they set it up properly per MOS:DABRL.

I am suggesting "Merge" to denote this proper disambiguation page choice. This would be copied to McArthur Lake page, so in fact the edit history of the list-article version will be preserved underneath.

Hey, don't blame me for making this complicated. I am trying to make it simple: "delete" or "keep" the list-article or "merge" meaning choose the disambiguation page which has merged elements from the list-article. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Engineering[edit]

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

Neither this or the rebranded name of built.io have attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability of WP:NCORP. Current sources are far from reliable. SmartSE (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth sources and for failing to assert why Raw Engineering is distinctly notable when compared to similar companies. Note this article is about the company and not said company's software, so the NCORP guideline is relevant.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and generally WP:TOOSOON. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The current sourcing is terrible and I almost jumped on the delete train, but I reread the nomination and found some coverage in tech pubs under the new name built.io of their work with the NBA [53][54][55], their community platform [56][57], their digital accelerator [58] and their Contentstack CMS product [59], which reportedly has Cisco, Best Buy and the Miami Heat as customers, and is being spun off as its own company. Meets WP:GNG by my reasoning. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @Timtempleton: In case you weren't aware, WP:NCORP was substantially tightened recently - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-04-26/Opinion. The main problem with those sources is that they are all relatively obscure tech publications (WP:AUD) - techcrunch for example is of no use for demonstrating notability. If there was some coverage in more mainstream sources, then the situation would be different, but if these are the best sources out there, I still do not think they are enough. SmartSE (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Smartse: I went to the new guidelines and don't really see anything that excludes any of the sources I posted above. We could certainly debate the similar notability of obscure writings on church doctrine used to source religious articles, or scientific papers used to source plant enzyme articles. Nonetheless, for the matter at hand, I just noticed you recently deleted an article named Built.io. Can you put it in my sandbox per WP:REFUND? I'd like to see if I can bring it up to passable status with the sourcing I identified. If I can, then this one can be deleted - I've already captured the text. Thanks! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, we could, but that doesn't have a basis in policy, unlike WP:CORP. Anyway, no worries, we can see what others think. As for built.io - it's irretrievably promotional so I won't be restoring it, but I have put some of the better references in User:Timtempleton/sandbox. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Grassy ass! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill technology company with zero indications of notability. References fails the criteria for establishing notability. References noted above also fail the criteria for establishing notability. In general, they are not intellectually independent, rely on quotations from a business partner and rehash company press releases. For example, this techrepublic.com reference is not intellectually independent and relies extensively on quotations/information from a business partner. It also appears to be a rehashing of this company press release. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I changed and struck my vote to speed this up and clear the queue. I'm still reviewing the sourcing for built.io, but since this is the old company name, no need to keep it unless anyone thinks the edit history is worth saving. This would only make sense as a redirect if the built.io article was deemed worth keeping, so it's chicken and egg now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Democratic Advancement[edit]

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

Article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Montrealite only created article to support position on CNE (see original edit and article creation date) --ZiaLater (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 13:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Fakir[edit]

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

Just because of MLA's father and criminal allegations, the person dosen't pass WP:N. Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 06:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is entirely lacking in any claim to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the entry is already cited to very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Articles entirely about this political amd religious leader who's wielded influence over his region for decades. Without even looking I cam guarantee that there are lots more sources discussing him. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @FloridaArmy: Influence in the region doesn't mean that it's a encyclopedic item. By this logic I would right to create the articles about the saint who has wide influence in my region and also quoted by the independent sources.-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 03:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Infkuential saints are notable as well. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Godric ki Kothri, FloridaArmy, I know about revered saints but about influential ones I first hear about now. :-) The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a cross between WP:INHERITED, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E; does not meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableAccesscrawl (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - searching "गाजी फकीर" gives a number of other results. This article is very much about Fakir and briefly summarizes criminal allegations about him. This article outlines his role in Jaisalmer politics since the 1970s. This article notes his relationship with his sons and their political achievements. It also states that he was a Jaisalmer district council member. This article is the most recent one I found, crediting Fakir with the a very recent election of a new district head in Jaisalmer. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the criminal information does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability and there's nothing better. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sources are routine for the criminal allegations present. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reasons given to keep, no target indicated for merge. Sandstein 09:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EasyScript Speed Writing[edit]

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

Over a decade since the previous AfD, this advertising brochure remains completely unsourced and I can find nothing about it except Amazon listings. The fact that I can find nothing substantial about the publisher, Legend Publications, is a massive red flag too as it suggests these books are a vanity project. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a particular abbreviated writing system, much of the article being close to a how-to guide. The 2007 AfD appears to have been influenced by the existence of the books, but these are WP:PRIMARY. The best source found in my searches is a passing mention of this and another such technique in a book but neither that nor anything else found provides sufficient evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge - see many mentions as a modern simpler shorthand compared to like Gregg. Maybe the first paragraph could go to an article on shorthand. StrayBolt (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baltica 11[edit]

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

Non-notable local recreational team that I can find no sources and and not even really mentions for in a search so fails WP:GNG far and away. DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with bandy - not notable enough for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG. Also, a non-notable recreational team does not require merging with the main topic article... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Courtney Act Tours[edit]

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

List of concert tours by a performer, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about the tours to make them notable per WP:NTOUR. Concert tours are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they existed, but must be referenced as the subject of reliable source coverage about the tour in media, such as actual music journalists writing actual reviews of the concert performances -- but the only references here are the performer's own self-published website and one PR blurb for one show in a concert calendar. This is not reliable sourcing for the purposes of making a concert tour (or a list of the concert tours) notable enough for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a collection of non-notable events; does not meet WP:NLIST due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fancruft and trivia, sorry to say. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tide Mill, Virginia[edit]

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

Non-notable area of the city of Hampton, Virginia, it doesn't appear on Google maps, has very few Google hits, and the article is also completely unreferenced. — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks notability of any source. There are likely 100 to 150,000 neighborhoods in the US alone. Lacking some clear and sourced historical or other notability factor we are talking WP:ROTM. The Slippery slope of wanting to list neighborhoods is a bad idea and when a subject is not sourceable it is against several policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regunta Yesurathnam[edit]

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

I don't know anything about the subject, but suspect it fails WP:BIO/WP:NPROF. It is heavily footnoted, but few of the sources appear to be independent/3rd party/WP:RS, and those that are, appear to mention Yesurathnam only in passing. Was previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Yesurathnam. I would have speedy deleted it again as a recreation, but too much time had passed. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria one: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." as his "works are available in nearly 35 research institutes of repute, consisting of Seminaries, state universities and Research Academies across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. The Systematic Theologian, Michael Amaladoss, SJ, of the Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Loyola College, Chennai has accessioned a title of Yesurathnam in 2014 which is available at the Institute". Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the very least, he has enough publications. I suspect there is more about him that is notable but do not know enough to be sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, this article needs a complete rewrite and a thorough check for copyright violations. It is hagiographic tripe even after my substantial recent pruning. I'm not convinced that he is widely cited, nor necessarily favourably so, and I don't think the holdings of seminaries etc count for much when it comes to assessing NAUTHOR. But I'm not going to !vote delete because I know it is damn near pointless when it comes to articles about authors. Let's just say that the article is crap and an embarrassment but I don't have access to sufficient of the sources to fix it entirely. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Atlantic306 , passes WP:NAUTHOR.But needs a rewrite. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable author. This article is like a pamphlet. Participating seminars is not suffecient for a Priest to become notable. Rayabhari (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian football transfers summer 2018[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/OR/SYTH/LISTN and no RS to meet GNG. Per all the rest of the preceedence. Sad can't speedy this Quek157 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the proper season article. SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - transfer activity in a fully professional league such as this is likely to garner sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - list of transfers is common enough in news and football sites to warrant it own article per WP:LISTN. Hzh (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Whilst I don’t read Farsi it appears the references are just brief reports confirming (presumably) that the transfers happened, rather than sources that list/collate the transfers in the manner that is presented in the article. Eldumpo (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we often keep the list of transfers that occur in professional leagues, and Iran's top league is considered fully professional by this WikiProject. There are also plenty of more articles here (Category:Lists of Iranian football transfers) so for consistency this article should be kept. Article needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I generally would go with Fenix Down argument for keeping pro-league football transfer lists. However I feel the Iranian league has a bit of a barrier between notability compared to other leagues around the world along with a language barrier issues. If this was the Farsi part of wikipedia I would say keep, but this is English Wiki and I am not so sure. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Colquhoun[edit]

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

A mildly-popular Youtuber who makes educational videos. The local "lifestyle" coverage doesn't seem sufficient to meet GNG.

This nomination is somewhat procedural; I'm neutral here but don't think the page can pass NPP without discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish football transfers summer 2018[edit]

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

Yet another fail LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT/SYNTH/OR/NOTDIRECTORY/GNG Quek157 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LISTCRUFT and pretty useless article in general. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the main reason of the nomination for deletion? I'm preparing this article like previous ones (eg. List of Polish football transfers summer 2017 and List of Polish football transfers winter 2016–17). Ryba842 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge These articles are typically notable and would usually be placed as part of the league article. No problem merging it back into the league article, but there's no reason why this information shouldn't be kept somewhere. I don't really know how any of the NOTs nominator used apply, but listcruft is also absolutely wrong, as this is a specific encyclopaedic list that likely passes WP:GNG if sourced properly. SportingFlyer talk 21:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - transfer activity in a fully professional league such as this is likely to garner sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists of football transfers are frequently covered in news and other independent websites, therefore it should qualify under WP:LISTN, however much I may dislike the proliferation of lists in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is a notable topic worthy of a list. Yes, there are references that individual transfers have taken place, but these largely seem to be based on very brief reports on 90minut.pl and there is no evidence that these are being collated elsewhere and are worthy of inclusion as a list here. Eldumpo (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we often keep the list of transfers that occur in professional leagues, this article should be kept. Article needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is clearly popping into the article and it looks to me like it should pass WP:GNG, I really don't like the format of the article know and feel it needs re-organising and improving. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a first-tier league info and quite useful. The problem is only that out of total 46 references, 44 are cited from same website. It is like seeing a summary (in english) of that website --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fully pro league, we have for long a series of these transfers lists for many leagues FkpCascais (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)every tansfer window, no reason to delete this one.[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Gavanski[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Claim to notability seems to be WP:CREATIVE but no indication that he played a major role in any production cited. Actual article is heavily promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's been a supervising producer, worked on the Chucky franchise, won a Canadian award for his film with Pedro Aldomovar, co-produced with Lions Gate Entertainment, worked with Hollywood stars, etc. For Canada, that's notable. Abonzz (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt any of what you write. However the notability guidelines, WP:CREATIVE don't make any sort country based consideration (vs some of the NSPORT guidelines which treat some things differently from different countries). That's why I wrote "he played a major role" since that's the standard the criteria is aiming for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Barkeep49 For producing the Chucky franchise, couldn't he fall under the following notability criteria"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." There are about seven films in the franchise. Thanks! Abonzz (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (talk) He is notable in Canada for having won a local award and having produced notable films. Also his work on the Chucky movie franchise fits the notability criteria for co-creating a collective body of work. Abonzz (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable not only in Canada but internationally for his work with US studios such as Lions Gate and Universal. His film "My Life Without Me" did not only get Canadian awards (Leo and Genie) but was also nominated for a number of Goya awards and won some (see the Wikipedia page). As well, it was in official competition at the Berlin Film festival. This film was co-produced by his company (Milestone) and Almodovar's (el Deseo). As the producer on a number of successful independent and studio films including Cult of Chucky, he definitely played a "major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work." A "producer" oversees the entire production, including creative and financial. User: Yeftini Veetz —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Yeftini Veetz (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not only did he produce one of the most successful and highly rated chapters of the Chucky franchise, he's also been tapped by Universal to produce the latest movie in their Doom franchise (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310452/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1). User: Yeftini Veetz —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Yeftini Veetz (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Venture[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, interviews, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. Award categories of "Best Male Newcomer", "New stud" etc. are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass PORNBIO. Lacks significant reliable source coverage needed to pass GNG. Gets most of his coverage from being in a video clicked on by Ted Cruz. Even then, he gets only incidental coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO. No significant reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Finnegas (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our coverage of performers in pornography is a clear case of no attention to following the GNG in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://www.julietemckenna.com/?cat=48

[2] ttp://www.britishfantasysociety.org/british-fantasy-awards/bfawinners/

[3] ttp://wizardstowerpress.com/books-2/books-by-juliet-e-mckenna/the-green-mans-heir/

[4] ttp://wizardstowerpress.com/books-2/books-by-juliet-e-mckenna/shadow-histories-of-the-river-kingdom/

[5] ttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9638283.Science_Fiction_convention_Eastercon_heading_for_Bradford/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]